Carter v. Associates Discount Corp.
| Decision Date | 18 April 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 8700,8700 |
| Citation | 550 S.W.2d 399 |
| Parties | Buford CARTER, Appellant, v. ASSOCIATES DISCOUNT CORPORATION, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Charles E. Neal, Amarillo, for appellant.
Brock, Waters & Galey, Harold H. Pigg, Lubbock, for appellee.
Plaintiff Associates Discount Corporation, succeeded by Associates Financial Services Co., Inc., is assignee of a conditional sales contract executed by Clark K. Carter to L. B. McGavock d/b/a McGavock Drilling Co. as payment for certain irrigation equipment installed by McGavock on land belonging to Clark K. Carter and on land belonging to Buford Carter. Plaintiff sued Clark K. Carter for the unpaid balance due on the installment sales contract and sued Buford Carter for conversion of its alleged interest in the equipment which was installed on his land and which he sold with the land. A jury found that prior to the assignment of the installment sales contract to plaintiff, McGavock had released any liens that he may or might have had on any equipment which he had installed on Buford Carter's land. The trial court rendered judgment against Clark K. Carter for the balance due on the contract. He has not appealed. The trial court also rendered judgment against defendant Buford Carter for the amount which the jury found to be the value of the equipment on his land at the time that he disposed of it. Defendant Buford Carter appealed. Reversed and rendered.
Sometime before April 3, 1965, Clark K. Carter, Buford Carter's father, arranged for L. B. McGavock, d/b/a McGavock Drilling Company, to install some irrigation equipment on land in Sherman County, Texas. Most of the equipment went onto land owned by Clark K. Carter. One well and its irrigation equipment was installed on a half section of land belonging to Buford Carter. L. B. McGavock testified that he knew that he was installing one well on Buford Carter's land. Both Carters testified that Clark K. Carter purchased that well and the equipment for Buford Carter as partial payment for Buford's previous labor for his father in farming operations at Vega, Texas.
On March 29, 1965, McGavock executed a release and waiver of any and all mechanics and materialman's liens that he might have on that date or at any time in the future on Buford Carter's land by virtue of the well that he was drilling and equipping on the land at that time. The release recites that it was given in consideration of ten dollars paid to him by the Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company and as an inducement to the company to complete a loan to Buford Carter which was to be secured by a deed of trust.
On April 3, 1965, Clark K. Carter executed an Installment Sales Contract to McGavock for irrigation equipment for six water wells. Included in the list of purchased property were irrigation well components, which were installed on Buford Carter's land. Buford Carter was not a party to this contract. On the same day McGavock assigned the installment sales contract to plaintiff Associates Discount Corporation. Neither of the Carters had communicated with Associates Discount prior to this assignment. On April 11, 1966, Buford Carter sold his half section of land and the equipment located on it.
On January 8, 1968, Associates Discount, in return for a large payment on the installment sales contract executed a release of all equipment covered by it except for the equipment located on the half-section which had been owned by Buford Carter.
Clark K. Carter defaulted on the note at a time when there was a balance owing of $15,471.76. Plaintiff brought this suit for the debt and for conversion of its alleged interest in the well and equipment located on the Buford Carter land. The case was tried to a jury. The court rendered judgment against Clark K. Carter for the $15,471.76 balance due on the conditional sales contract plus interest and plus $2,320.76 attorney's fees and against Buford...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Skyland Developers, Inc. v. Sky Harbor Associates, 1371
...result the trial judge should have reached if he had interpreted and construed the contract as a matter of law. See Carter v. Associates Discount Corp., 550 S.W.2d 399, 400 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1977, no writ); City of Houston v. Howe & Wise, 323 S.W.2d 134, 143 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston (1st ......
-
Camco Intern. Inc. v. Perry R. Bass, Inc.
...is charged, Camco must have also owned the right to use it. One cannot convey a right which one does not have. See Carter v. Associates Discount Corp., 550 S.W.2d 399, 401 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1977, no writ). Camco argue that they would be acting beyond the 1974 agreement if they chose t......
-
State Fidelity Mortg. Co. v. Varner
...and no more. Houchins v. Scheltz, 590 S.W.2d 745, 751 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1979, no writ); Carter v. Associates Discount Corp., 550 S.W.2d 399, 401 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1977, no writ). Accordingly, an assignee may recover only those damages potentially available to his ass......
-
Capitan Enterprises, Inc. v. Jackson
...1987, writ denied); Houchins v. Scheltz, 590 S.W.2d 745, 751 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1979, no writ); Carter v. Associates Discount Corp., 550 S.W.2d 399, 401 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1977, no writ). 3 We believe that the same rule should apply equally to the other party to the or......