Coleman v. Ebeling
Decision Date | 10 May 1911 |
Citation | 138 S.W. 199 |
Parties | COLEMAN et al. v. EBELING. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Burnet County; Clarence Martin, Judge.
Action by Otto Ebeling against T. A. Coleman and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed and rendered in part, and affirmed in part.
C. C. Clamp, for appellants. T. E. Hammond, Dayton Moses, and Ike D. White, for appellee.
Appellee brought suit against J. C. Proctor, T. A. Coleman, C. A. Keeran, and R. L. Lacy, alleging, in substance: That said Proctor, Coleman, and Keeran entered into a written contract with said Lacy to sell him and one Evans certain lands in Dimmit county, Tex., including four certain sections of school land, and, contriving and conspiring to wrong, cheat, and defraud the said Lacy, represented to him that the defendant Proctor was the owner of said school land; that he had purchased said land from the state of Texas under and in compliance with the laws providing for the sale of school lands; that he had settled upon said lands and resided on same up to the date of said sale in strict accordance and in compliance with the laws of the state of Texas regulating and pertaining to the purchase and occupancy of state school land; and that there was a fine well of water on said land. That said Lacy believed said statements to be true, and, relying upon the same, paid said Proctor, Coleman, and Keeran the sum of $4,021.80 for said land, and received from said Proctor a deed to said lands. That in truth and in fact the said Proctor had never settled upon or resided upon said land, as by law required of the purchaser of school land, and that there was no well on said lands, all of which was well known to said Proctor, Coleman, and Keeran at the time said contract was executed, but was unknown to said Lacy. That in consequence of the failure of said Proctor to settle upon and to continue to reside upon said land, as by law required, the Commissioner of the General Land Office had canceled the sale of said school sections to said Proctor, and had sold them to other parties. That by reason of the premises the said Proctor, Coleman, and Keeran had become indebted to said Lacy in the amount so paid for said school land, and that said Lacy had transferred his said claim against said parties to appellee herein, and had in writing guaranteed the payment of same. Coleman and Keeran excepted to appellee's petition as showing no cause of action against them, but only a separate cause of action against Proctor. Proctor also excepted to said petition as showing a misjoinder of parties. The petition, in addition to the facts above set out, alleged that said contract was also for the sale of other lands belonging to Coleman and Keeran, referred to in said contract hereinafter set out. Proctor, Coleman, and Keeran pleaded the two-year statute of limitation and a general denial. The case was tried before the court without a jury. All exceptions were overruled, and judgment was rendered for appellee for $3,840, the amount paid by Lacy, with interest from September 1, 1907. Proctor, Coleman, and Keeran have appealed from said judgment upon assignments of error filed separately by Coleman and Keeran and by said Proctor.
Findings of Fact.
The contract referred to in appellee's petition was as follows:
—containing in the aggregate 16,640 acres of land, and being the same identical land conveyed by Higgans and others to said Coleman and Keeran on July 26, 1900, which deed is duly recorded in the deed records of Dimmit county; also survey No. ____ in the name of Nancy A. Boone, containing 1280 acres of land, abst. 983, cert. 896. All of the foregoing described land containing in the aggregate 17,920 acres, which land is title land and owned by the said Coleman and Keeran. Also the following school sections owned by the said J. C. Proctor, to wit: Sections 10, 20, 22, and 28 in block No. 10, T. W. N. G. R. R. Co. of 640 acres each, the Proctor school land aggregating 2560 acres.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Steele v. Glenn
...S. W. 984; Gillispie v. Gray (Tex. Civ. App.) 214 S. W. 730; Howell v. Bank of Snyder (Tex. Civ. App.) 158 S. W. 574; Coleman v. Ebeling (Tex. Civ. App.) 138 S. W. 199. A few cases refer to the time of discovery as being the time when the cause of action accrued. Other decisions declare, in......
-
Ray v. Barrington
...v. Swearingen (Tex. Civ. App.) 193 S. W. 442, 452, 453; Harris v. Flowers (Tex. Civ. App.) 52 S. W. 1046, 1047, 1049; Coleman v. Ebeling (Tex. Civ. App.) 138 S. W. 199, 204. We have examined all of the propositions presented by appellants, and, finding no reversible error shown thereby, the......
-
Adams v. Petrade Intern., Inc.
...Adams were separate and not joint. See Click v. Seale, 519 S.W.2d 913, 918 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Coleman v. Ebeling, 138 S.W. 199, 204 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1911, no writ). There was evidence that Petrade treated Box and Adams separately with regard to the settleme......
-
Briggs v. Rodriguez
...inactive until he has knowledge of some fact which would put him upon inquiry whether the representations were false. Coleman v. Ebeling (Tex.Civ.App.), 138 S.W. 199-204; Isaacks v. Wright, 50 Tex.Civ.App. 312, 110 S.W. 970; Smalley v. Vogt (Tex.Civ.App.), 166 S.W. 1. Each case must be deci......