Catlin v. Glover

• Citation: 4 Tex. 151
• Parties: CATLIN v. GLOVER.
• Decision Date: 31 December 1849
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

4 Tex. 151

CATLIN

v.GLOVER.

Supreme Court of Texas.

December Term, 1849.

The facts that are well pleaded only are to be taken for true on general demurrer.

The mere use of a person's name as trustee is not sufficient to raise an implied promise on the part of the beneficiary to pay him a sum of money as commissions or otherwise.

Allegations that “the plaintiff attended to the duties imposed on him by said trust, and to the interest of said defendant in that behalf, to the best of his judgment and in compliance with the instructions of said defendant,” and that “he ought to have and recover” the sum demanded “as his reasonable commissions for his care, trouble, attention, and responsibility in that behalf: Held to be insufficient, even on a general demurrer.

The object of the petition is to inform the court and the defendant of the facts which constitute the plaintiff's cause of action; therefore general expressions, independent of time, place, or circumstances, are not sufficient.

Where a general demurrer to the petition is sustained, and the plaintiff does not ask leave to amend, final judgment for the defendant should be entered.

Appeal from Austin. The appellant brought suit against the appellee for the recovery of a sum of money. The petition alleges that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $272.76, and states the cause of action as follows, viz: “That on the 1st day of March, A. D. 1844, one William E. Crump, being in debt to the said Glover in the sum of four thousand five hundred and twenty and 96-100 dollars, executed and delivered a deed of trust on certain property therein mentioned, to secure the payment thereof, in which deed said petitioner was trustee, with the power and authority and rights usually conferred in such cases; and that he, the said plaintiff, attended to the duties imposed on him by said trust-deed, and to the interest of said Glover in that behalf, to the best of his judgment, and in compliance with the instructions of said Glover, from the time of making said trust-deed as aforesaid until afterwards, to wit, the 1st day of October, A. D. 1846, about which time, or at some time not known to your petitioner, the said William E. Crump settled the said debt secured in said trust-deed with the said Glover. The premises considered, your petitioner says that he ought to have and recover the said sum of two hundred and seventy-two 76-100 dollars from said defendant as his reasonable commissions for his care, trouble, attention, and responsibility in that behalf.”

The defendant excepted to the legal sufficiency of the petition. The exceptions were sustained and the case dismissed, and the plaintiff appealed.

Munger, for appellant. The petition disclosed a good cause of action if the facts stated...