Chancellor v. Brachman
Decision Date | 11 July 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 12534.,12534. |
Citation | 41 S.W.2d 1015 |
Parties | CHANCELLOR v. BRACHMAN. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Young County; Allan D. Montgomery, Judge.
Suit by W. P. Chancellor against S. Brachman. From a judgment for part of amount claimed, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
C. W. Johnson, Jr., of Graham, and Marvin H. Brown and Walter D. Nicholson, both of Fort Worth, for appellant.
E. L. Gilbert, of Fort Worth, and Fred T. Arnold, of Graham, for appellee.
W. P. Chancellor, of Young county, sued S. Brachman, of Tarrant county, and for cause of complaint, as shown in the third amended original petition, he alleged that on August 18, 1930, plaintiff was lawfully seized and possessed of certain described lands situated in Young county; that, on the day and year last mentioned, defendant unlawfully entered upon said premises and ejected defendant therefrom, and unlawfully withholds from him the possession thereof, to his damage in the sum of $25,000. That plaintiff and defendant entered into a written contract, which will be hereinafter set out, and in pursuance of said contract defendant took in trust said lease in his own name for the plaintiff. That defendant has collected and is collecting the consideration for the various sales of said lease and interests therein, and has repudiated said trust set out in said contract, and is denying plaintiff's interest in said leasehold estate.
The contract referred to is as follows:
The terms and provisions of this contract shall extend to and be binding upon the heirs and assigns of all parties hereto.
Defendant answered by a general demurrer and a general denial, and specially pleaded that he was not guilty of the wrongs, injuries, and trespasses set out in plaintiff's petition.
Upon a trial before the court without the intervention of a jury, the trial court gave judgment for plaintiff for an undivided one-sixteenth interest in the oil and gas leases covering the west 160 acres of the north 240 acres of the T. E. & L. Co. survey No. 31, abstract No. 307, Young county, Tex., and an undivided one-sixteenth interest in the oil and gas leases covering the east 80 acres of the north 240 acres of the T. E. & L. Co. survey No. 31, abstract No. 307, Young county, Tex., less a 20-acre lease in the form of a square, carved out of the northeast corner and previously sold to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stinnette v. Mauldin
...585, 131 S.W. 1061; Buzard v. McAnulty, 77 Tex. 438, 14 S.W. 138; Eagle Drug Co. v. White, Tex.Civ.App., 182 S.W. 378; Chancellor v. Brachman, Tex.Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 1015; Bell v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 81, 104 S.W.2d B. M. Dorrity has requested leave to file his plea of Amicus Curiae on thi......
-
Goodwin v. Winston
...two relations, that of employer and employe, and of parties to an executory contract to form a partnership.' In Chancellor v. Brachman, Tex.Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 1015, 1018, the court used this language: 'The mere agreement to form a partnership does not itself create a partnership, nor does ......
-
Willis v. Harvey
...154; Buzard & Hilliard v. McAnulty & Mosty, 77 Tex. 438, 14 S.W. 138; Bell v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 81, 104 S.W.2d 511; Chancellor v. Brachman, Tex.Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 1015; Cearley v. Cearley, Tex.Civ.App., 331 S.W.2d 510. here there is a dispute as to the terms of the agreement as to wheth......
-
Thompson v. Thompson
...to the formation of a partnership, it will not come into existence until the condition has been met. Chancellor v. Brachman,41 S.W.2d 1015 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1931); Arnold v. Caprielian, 437 S.W.2d 620 (Tex.Civ.App.--Tyler 1969). Appellant seeks to apply this rule by contending that ......