Cauble v. Beaver-Electra Refining Co.

Decision Date31 May 1922
Docket Number(No. 1979.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>
Citation243 S.W. 762
PartiesCAUBLE v. BEAVER-ELECTRA REFINING CO.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from District Court, Wichita County; E. W. Napier, Judge.

Action by the Beaver-Electra Refining Company against Mrs. S. O. Cauble. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Weeks, Morrow & Francis, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.

Aynesworth, Williams & Watkins, of Wichita Falls, for appellee.

HALL, J.

The appellee, a joint-stock association, sued H. F. Cauble and wife, Mrs. S. O. Cauble, on an open account for fuel oil in the sum of $4,452.68. In addition to the formal allegations necessary in a suit upon an open account, the plaintiff alleged:

"That the defendant, S. O. Cauble, is a married woman and has a separate estate, and that in acting in this matter that she has acted under the name of the Cauble Oil Company; that in truth and in fact it is a trade-name for herself and her husband, the other defendant herein, and that she has acted for and in behalf of her separate estate and for her husband, and that he was acting for her and for himself jointly, and that as such they are partners in business. That each and the separate estate of the said S. O. Cauble became liable, bound, and promised to pay to this plaintiff the full amount of said claim, and for all of which this suit is here now brought," etc.

There is a further count based upon an account for $2,577, which was abandoned during the trial. Mrs. Cauble answered by general demurrer and by special answer, alleging, in substance, that at all the times mentioned in the plaintiff's petition she was the wife of H. F. Cauble and living with him; that during such time she engaged in business upon her own account, buying and selling oil leases, drilling oil wells, and engaging in the oil business generally; that in said acts she was in no way joined by her husband, was not acting as his agent, and he had no interest whatever in such enterprise; that she was to have the profits and was to stand the losses, if any, sustained by reason of such business; that she engaged in said business without the consent of her husband, and he was not a party to her transactions in any way; that the items sued for were not necessaries for herself and children, and were not such articles as she could bind her husband for, nor could she legally bind herself; that she now repudiates said contract, declines to be bound by same, and for such purpose pleads her coverture. She further alleges that she had no separate estate except her separate business in drilling oil wells and buying and selling oil leases, and that any such contract, made in the course of said business during coverture, is not enforceable under the laws of this state. H. F. Cauble filed a separate answer, alleging substantially the facts set out by Mrs. Cauble, and further that he did not receive any benefit from any of the business transactions in which she was engaged, and denies that he was a partner with his wife in any of the enterprises out of which the indebtedness grew; that he had no knowledge of the transactions; that she neither consulted with him nor was authorized by him to engage in the business; that he has not ratified nor confirmed the obligation in any way. The allegation denying partnership is verified. The case was tried to the court without a jury. The substance of the findings of fact and conclusions of law is as follows:

(1) The merchandise described in the petition was sold to Mrs. S. O. Cauble at her special instance and request.

(2) That the market value thereof was $4,452.68; that Mrs. Cauble had ordered said goods to be delivered to her employees.

(3) Plaintiff's charges are reasonable, just, and fair, and that the items sued for were reasonable and proper and necessary for the preservation, protection and benefit of the separate estate of Mrs. Cauble.

(4) That on or about the ______ day of ______, 1918, and for some time prior thereto, Mrs. Cauble had been extensively engaged in the oil business upon her own separate account, with the mutual understanding between herself and her husband that whatever profits she made therefrom were to belong to her personally, and that she should pay any losses out of her own separate estate; that H. F. Cauble should have any and all profits and stand any and all losses which might result by reason of his own separate business; that all property acquired by Cauble and his wife was so acquired after their marriage.

(5) That during the year 1918, and prior thereto, up until the trial of this cause, Mrs. Cauble engaged in the oil and gas business and well drilling upon her own separate account, from which she derived large sums of money, aggregating about $48,000; that she did engage in drilling oil wells and producing oil, and that it was necessary and proper for her and her separate estate, which she had theretofore acquired, to have the goods, wares, and merchandise sued for the operation of her drilling machinery and for the exploitation and development of various and sundry leases which she then held.

(6) That the items shown in the exhibit to the petition were used by her in the development of her individual leases and in the operation of her drilling machinery upon her own leases and leases owned by other parties adjacent thereto, which she was developing; that all of said items were proper and necessary and beneficial in the development and preservation of her own separate estate, and every item thereof was a proper and necessary charge against her separate estate, and that she intended to bind her separate estate in the purchase thereof.

(7) That H. F. Cauble was fully advised at the time of the purchase made by his wife, and had assured the plaintiff after said merchandise was purchased that Mrs. Cauble would pay for same, and that at the said time he was acting as agent of his wife, Mrs. Cauble, so constituted her agent by Mrs. Cauble, to act for her and in her behalf, with respect to the matters in suit.

(8) Since the institution of this suit Mrs. Cauble has filed in the district court of Wichita county a suit against her codefendant, H. F. Cauble, for divorce, praying for dissolution and annulment from the bonds of matrimony, and since the institution of this suit it has been heard, divorce granted, and she is now a feme sole; that in said cause the parties carried out their agreement theretofore entered into, and in the divorce decree Mrs. Cauble was given all of the property which she had acquired, and to H. F. Cauble was decreed the property which he had accumulated in the separate business; that in accordance with the decree Mrs. Cauble has retained the leases which she was developing with the fuel oil which plaintiff had sold to her; that all the profits she had made in all transactions since their agreement in 1918 had been decreed to her as her separate estate; that the rights of third parties or creditors have not been jeopardized by their agreement so entered into in the year 1918, and that the agreement was binding upon them, and is given full force and effect by this decree; that it was the intention and purpose of Mrs. Cauble and her then husband in entering into said agreement to make the net profits from the separate enterprises of Mrs. Cauble her separate and individual estate; and that the same purpose existed as to the profits derived by H. F. Cauble from his separate estate; they further intended that Mrs. Cauble and her separate estate should become and be held liable and bound for any and all debts and expenses necessary and proper or incident to her said operations, and that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Snodgrass v. Brownfield State Bank
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 2 d3 Maio d3 1923
    ...appellee contends that the peremptory instruction is correct, basing its contention upon the holding of this court in Cauble v. Beaver-Electric Refining Co., 243 S. W. 762, and Taylor et al. v. Husted, 243 S. W. 766, and other cases in which a married woman was held liable under the provisi......
  • Taylor v. Hustead & Tucker
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 7 d3 Junho d3 1922
    ...v. Turbeville (Tex. Civ. App.) 216 S. W. 1101; Crutcher v. Sligar (Tex. Civ. App.) 224 S. W. 227. In the case of Mrs. S. O. Cauble v. Beaver-Electra Refining Co., 243 S. W. 762 (not yet [officially] published), similar in many respects to the instant case, this court has held that a married......
  • Owen v. Willis
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 11 d3 Setembro d3 1929
    ... ... Collins v. Humble Oil & Refining Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 223 S. W. 696, and authorities cited. If the defendant Bill Owen is restrained ... Cauble v. Beaver-Electra Refining Co., 115 Tex. 1, 274 S. W. 120; Id. (Civ. App.) 243 S. W. 762 ... ...
  • Cauble v. Beaver-Electra Refining Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 10 d3 Junho d3 1925
    ...by the Beaver-Electra Refining Company against Mrs. S. O. Cauble. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (243 S. W. 762), and defendant brings error. Affirmed. Weeks, Morrow & Francis, of Wichita Falls, for plaintiff in error. Aynesworth, Williams & Watkins, of Wi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT