Buster v. Woody
| Decision Date | 06 April 1912 |
| Citation | 146 S.W. 689 |
| Parties | BUSTER et al. v. WOODY et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Floyd County; L. S. Kinder, Judge.
Action by J. N. Farris against F. S. Woody, consolidated with action by H. W. Brown against J. N. Farris, F. S. Woody, and T. H. Buster. Judgment in favor of Farris against all parties to the suit, and in favor of defendant Brown against Woody and Buster, and Brown and Buster separately appeal. Judgment against defendant Buster reversed, and in other respects affirmed.
T. P. Adams, of Floydada, for appellants. Houghton & Hall and J. B. Bartley, all of Floydada, for appellees.
On July 7, 1911, John N. Farris, one of the appellees herein, filed suit in the district court of Floyd county, in cause No. 802, on the civil docket of said court, against appellee F. S. Woody, to recover the amount of principal, interest, and attorney's fees on a certain vendor's lien note for $375, of date March 29, 1909, and due on its face March 29, 1910, alleging the execution and delivery to him of two notes by said Woody for the same sum and of same date, and alleging the payment of the first one; further alleging that the notes were given as part payment for certain lands sold and conveyed by Farris to Woody, and described in the pleading, and prayer was made for foreclosure of the lien on said land. On July 18, 1911, H. W. Brown, one of the appellants herein, filed suit in the same court, in cause No. 808, on the civil docket thereof, against F. S. Woody, as maker, and J. N. Farris and T. H. Buster as indorsers on a certain vendor's lien note of date March 29, 1909, due on its face September 29, 1909, alleging that said note was given J. N. Farris as a part of the purchase of certain lands (describing them, and they being the same lands described in plaintiff's petition in cause No. 802); and further alleging that it was the first of the two notes given by Woody to Farris as a part of the purchase price for the lands, alleged the purchase of said note by Buster from Farris, and a purchase by plaintiff from Buster as well as an indorsement by said persons, respectively. On August 9, 1911, on motion of H. W. Brown, the trial court by proper order consolidated causes 802 and 808, and ordered that the trial proceed under cause No. 802, styled John Farris v. F. S. Woody et al. J. N. Farris' pleadings in the consolidated cause were so framed as to seek a recovery of judgment against Woody for the principal, interest, and attorney's fees due on the note sued on by him, and to foreclose his vendor's lien as against all parties to the suit, alleging facts tending to show a want of liability as indorser on the note sued on by Brown. Appellant Brown in his pleadings in said consolidated cause sought a recovery on his note against Woody as maker, and Farris and Buster as indorsers, and prayed for a foreclosure of the vendor's lien, alleging that his was of equal standing with the lien asserted by Farris. Buster pleaded as against Brown's cause of action general and special exceptions and an especial denial of any act or word warranting Brown in having failed to sue at the first term of court as a means of holding Buster as an indorser on the note sued on. Woody, while duly cited to appear in the cause of action sued on by both Farris and Brown, appears to have made no defense. The case was tried before the court without a jury, and judgment rendered in favor of Farris and against Woody on the note sued on by Farris for the sum of $511.50, and a foreclosure of the vendor's lien on the land as against all of the parties to the suit. Judgment was also rendered in favor of Brown against Woody as maker and against Buster as indorser on the note sued on by Brown for the sum of $491.56. No recovery was had by Brown against Farris, though a foreclosure of a lien on the lands was awarded subject to a prior lien adjudged to secure the payment of Farris' judgment. To this judgment appellants Brown and Buster prosecuted separate appeals to this court, and each has assigned errors as indicated below.
There is on file among the papers in this cause a paper styled "Statement of Facts," but as an inspection of same shows that it is in reality the transcript of the stenographer's notes, as required in section 5 of the Act of 1909, page 376, is not signed by counsel of any of the appellants or appellees, nor is it signed or approved by the court, we are not at liberty to look to it or consider it as a statement of facts, although no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Catalon
...11 S.W. 1066; Stone v. McClellan & Prince, 36 Tex.Civ.App. 354, 81 S.W. 751; Petty v. Morgan, Tex. Civ.App., 116 S.W. 141; Buster v. Woody, Tex.Civ.App., 146 S.W. 689; Matthies v. Rannals, Tex.Civ.App., 91 S.W.2d 380; Womack v. First National Bank, Tex.Civ. App., 81 S.W.2d In Matthies v. Ra......
-
McCamant v. McCamant
...matters of excuse must be alleged and proven. Mullaly v. Ivory, 30 S. W. 259; Seguin Milling & Power Co. v. Guinn, 137 S. W. 456; Buster v. Woody, 146 S. W. 689; Dunn v. Townsend, 163 S. W. 312; Bank v. Powell, 149 S. W. 1096; Dillard v. Lbr. 141 S. W. 1023; Lbr. Co. v. Lee, 7 Tex. Civ. App......
-
Safety Inv. Co. v. National Bond & Mortgage Corp.
...as to the facts upon which it was rendered, to be correct. Clark & Johnson v. Hamilton (Tex.Civ. App.) 16 S.W.(2d) 833; Buster v. Woody (Tex.Civ.App.) 146 S.W. 689, 691; Beaumont Imp. Co. v. Carr, 32 Tex.Civ.App. 615, 75 S.W. 327. As concerns appellant's contention that this court may look ......
-
Doyle v. Sullivan
...of them bound by the private agreement of the Sullivans and McKinley, under which appellees paid off the note sued on by them. Buster v. Woody, 146 S. W. 689. As a result of the principles of law above announced, the pleadings and proof in the record are amply sufficient to require a judgme......