Brown v. American Freehold Land Mortg. Co.

• Decision Date: 23 May 1904
• Citation: 80 S.W. 985
• Parties: BROWN et al. v. AMERICAN FREEHOLD LAND MORTG. CO. OF LONDON, Limited, et al.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

80 S.W. 985

BROWN et al. v. AMERICAN FREEHOLD LAND MORTG. CO. OF LONDON, Limited, et al.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 23, 1904.

Certified Questions from Court of Civil Appeals of Third Supreme Judicial District.

Action by R. L. Brown and others against the American Freehold Land Mortgage Company of London, Limited, and others. On certified questions from the Court of Civil Appeals. Answered.

Fiset, Miller & McClendon, for appellants. Gano, Gano & Gano and Sleeper & Kendall, for appellees.

BROWN, J.

The Court of Civil Appeals of the Third District has submitted the following statement and questions in the above cause:

"R. L. Brown and J. Gordon Brown sued the American Freehold Land Mortgage Company of London, Limited, R. B. King, and T. Mallinson to recover $150,000 damages. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs for $100, and they have appealed. The appellees have filed cross-assignments, and, having reached the conclusion that appellants' brief points out reversible error, we desire to certify to the Supreme Court certain questions presented by the cross-assignments, which questions are material to the rights of the parties and to a proper disposition of the case.

"The plaintiffs' original petition was filed June 27, 1901, and the amended petition, on which the plaintiffs went to trial, was filed February 23, 1903. The latter petition reads as follows:

[From the petition certified we condense the allegations which we deem necessary to answer the questions submitted as follows: After making the formal allegations of the parties, their residences, etc., the petition alleges, in substance, that R. L. Brown and J. G. Brown, under the firm name of Brown Bros., had established at Austin and at the city of Waco a business as loan agents, which transacted business throughout the state, and had, from 1888 to the year 1898, conducted the business of lending money on behalf of foreign corporations, receiving for their services a per cent. of the annual interest as it accrued upon the loans made; that the plaintiffs had established a good reputation as business men for honesty, promptness, and reliability, and as men who could command money for lending to those who might apply to them to borrow, and, in the transaction of the business of loan agents, had established business relations with many people in Texas who were borrowers of money, who had confidence in plaintiffs and would have continued to do business with them except for the interference of defendants. Plaintiffs allege that they were appointed agents of the American Freehold Land Mortgage Company of London, Limited, hereafter called the "defendant company," in the year 1888, and continued to transact business as such agents for that company until the year 1898, during which time a profitable business was done for the said defendant company, from which the plaintiffs received annually $8,000. The petition alleges that the plaintiffs were at the same time agents for the English & Scottish Land Mortgage & Investment Company, Limited, a foreign corporation, which business was satisfactory to the said corporation, and was profitable to it and plaintiffs, until said English & Scottish Company was induced by the false representations of defendants to take the business from plaintiffs. It is alleged that in the year 1898 the defendant company determined to change the manner of doing business in Texas, so as to pay salaries instead of commissions, as it had done with the plaintiffs, and determined that it would secure for itself the agency for the English & Scottish Land Mortgage & Investment Company, Limited, which the plaintiffs then had and would have continued to hold, but for the wrongful acts of the defendants. It is alleged that by reason of the transactions which the plaintiffs had carried on as agents, lending money for the said two corporations, as well as for others, they had established a valuable business, having loaned money to many persons, which loans were about to mature, and said persons would require to renew the loans or to borrow money to pay them; that plaintiffs would have been able to control that business as agents of other companies, after the agencies for the said two companies had been taken from them, and to prevent this and to secure the plaintiffs' business for themselves the defendants, the said defendant company, R.B. King, and T. Mallinson, who are alleged to be agents of defendant company, fraudulently and maliciously combined, confederated, and conspired together for the purpose of weakening and destroying plaintiffs' business influence, financial credit, and standing, to break them up and run them out of business, and, for the purpose of causing the English & Scottish Company to transfer its business to the defendant company, the defendants made certain false and malicious representations to the said English & Scottish Company as to the management of its business by the plaintiffs, which caused the said last-named company to take the business agency in Texas from the plaintiffs, and that by means of the fraudulent combination, and their acts done and performed, alleged specifically in the petition, the said defendants succeeded in preventing the plaintiffs from continuing their business with a large number of their clients, who needed to borrow money and whose loans in the other companies were maturing, and, by the fraudulent and false representations in manner alleged in the petition, defendants prevented the said persons from making application to the plaintiffs for such loans, and succeeded in causing the English & Scottish Company to take its business from the plaintiffs, and thereby weakened and in a large measure destroyed the business of the plaintiffs. It is alleged in the petition that the defendants, for the wicked, malicious, and fraudulent purpose before charged, circulated and published reports and statements to the effect that the plaintiffs were insolvent, and unable to...