Cotton v. Rand
Decision Date | 19 June 1899 |
Citation | 51 S.W. 838 |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Parties | COTTON et al. v. RAND. |
Action by Noyes Rand against Frank B. Cotton and others. From a judgment of the court of civil appeals affirming a judgment for plaintiff (51 S. W. 55), defendants bring error. Reversed.
Millard Patterson and W. B. Merchant, for plaintiffs in error. Leigh Clark, W. M. Coldwell, and W. B. Brack, for defendant in error.
The defendant in error, Noyes Rand, brought this suit against plaintiffs in error, Frank B. Cotton and others, on the 12th day of September, 1893. He obtained a judgment, which was reversed by the court of civil appeals. Cotton v. Rand, 29 S. W. 682. The cause was again tried upon a fourth amended original petition, filed May 4, 1898, and again resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff. That judgment having been affirmed by the court of civil appeals (51 S. W. 55), this writ of error has been sued out to reverse it.
The suit was brought to recover a salary alleged to have been earned by the plaintiff as agent under a contract made by F. B. Cotton, for himself and others, and also for certain expenditures claimed to have been made by plaintiff as such agent. The alleged agency grew out of certain joint ventures of the parties to this suit and others in certain mineral and suburban lands. The first venture had its origin in a written agreement entered into in April, 1880, by the plaintiff, Noyes Rand, Francis W. Abney, Richard W. Dorphley, P. B. Delaney, and Clarence P. Ehrman, as parties of the first part, and by defendant Cotton, for himself and others (whose names are not disclosed in the writing), as parties of the second part. The stipulations of that agreement were as follows:
The second contract was entered into December, 1880, by F. B. Cotton of the first part, and Rand and Dorphley of the second part. Its stipulations are as follows: This contract is signed by Cotton, for self and associates, and by Rand and Dorphley.
Under the first contract, more than 87 sections of mineral lands were acquired, and were conveyed, as provided therein, to F. B. Cotton and Edwin B. Buckingham, as trustees. Under the second contract, there was acquired for the parties thereto a tract of 550 acres of land lying adjacent to the city of El Paso, which is known as the "Cotton Addition" to that city. The title to this tract seems to have been taken in the name of Cotton, as trustee. Most of the parties to the venture in the mineral lands were also interested in the purchase and sale of the Cotton addition, but there were some parties interested in each who had no interest in the other enterprise.
About the month of August, 1881, Cotton, through a correspondence by mail and telegraph, entered into a contract with Rand, by which he engaged Rand to take the management, as agent, of the mineral lands and the Cotton addition for the term of one year, and, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Randall v. Peerless Motor Car Co.
... ... 34 L. R. A.m n. s.) 1046; q/uinn v. Burton, 195 Mass. 277, 81 ... N.E. 257; Erskine, Oxenford & Co. v. Sachs, 1901, 2 ... K. B. 504; Cotton v. Rand, 93 Tex. 7, 23, 51 S.W ... 838, 53 S.W. 343 ... Nor was ... it necessary that the defendant should have known of the ... ...
-
Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank v. Colbert
...of San Antonio v. French, 80 Tex. 575, 16 S.W. 440, 26 Am.St.Rep. 763; City of Sherman v. Connor, 88 Tex. 35, 29 S.W. 1053; Cotton v. Rand, 93 Tex. 7, 51 S.W. 838; Markham Irr. Co. v. Brown, Tex.Com.App., 292 S. W. 863; Rogers-Hill & Co. v. San Antonio Hotel Co., Tex.Com.App., 23 S.W.2d 329......
-
Colbert v. Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank of Dallas
...the contract by the plaintiff. Carroll v. Welch, 26 Tex. 147; City of Sherman v. Connor and Oliver, 88 Tex. 35, 29 S.W. 1053; Cotton v. Rand, 93 Tex. 7, 51 S.W. 838, 53 S.W. 343; Henrietta National Bank v. Barrett (Tex.Civ.App.) 25 S.W. 456 (application for writ of error refused); Markham I......
-
Binder v. Millikin.
...is reasonable, and there is no escape from it. The courts of Texas have followed the rule stated, and in the case of Cotton v. Rand, 93 Tex. 7, 51 S. W. 838, 53 S. W. 343, the Supreme Court "We are clearly of the opinion that such a breach of duty on part of an agent, unless condoned by the......