Culver v. Pickens
| Decision Date | 08 December 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 8110.,8110. |
| Citation | 176 S.W.2d 167 |
| Parties | CULVER et al. v. PICKENS et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Petitioners, heirs and claimants under heirs of George L. Culver, deceased, brought this action to establish a constructive trust based upon alleged fraud on the part of respondent, W. L. Pickens, who was formerly administrator of the estate of the deceased, and for an accounting; the property upon which it is sought to establish a trust consisting largely of oil and gas leases and oil bearing properties fully described in the petition. In a pretrial hearing special exceptions to their second amended original petition were sustained and, upon their declining further to amend, the case was dismissed. The Court of Civil Appeals held that the trial court erred in its ruling on each of the special exceptions sustained by it, but further held that the judgment of the trial court was nevertheless correct because the claim asserted by petitioners was barred by laches. The trial court overruled the exception presenting the question of laches, but the Court of Civil Appeals sustained that exception and, upon that ground alone, affirmed the trial court's judgment. 169 S. W.2d 523.
Were we of the opinion that the trial court erred in overruling that exception, we would reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and remand the cause in order to afford the parties an opportunity to amend, if they so desired. Boren v. Billington, 82 Tex. 137, 18 S.W. 101. But we are of opinion that it did not err in that ruling.
The petition alleged that George L. Culver died, intestate, in Dallas county on February 16, 1936, leaving as his sole heirs at law his father, G. C. Culver, and his mother, Elizabeth Culver; that shortly thereafter the father and mother conveyed undivided portions of the estate to the other petitioners herein, all of whom were related to the deceased; that before George L. Culver was buried the respondent, W. L. Pickens, a business associate and joint owner of mineral interests with him, procured from the father and mother of deceased a waiver of their right to be appointed administrator, and on the same day was appointed and qualified as temporary administrator of said estate, and thereafter on the 11th day of March, 1936, qualified as permanent administrator. It was further alleged that by March 3, 1937, all property of the estate had been disposed of by Pickens, as administrator, except 998 of the 1000 shares of the capital stock of Nathan Oil Company, Inc., of the reasonable market value of $650,000, three-fourths interest in approximately 350,000 barrels of crude oil, of the value of $100,000 and other assets of the value of $50,000. The liabilities of the estate and of Nathan Oil Company, Inc., together were alleged to be not more than $145,000, leaving a net valuation and reasonable market value of the estate at $665,000.
It was further alleged that some time prior to March 3, 1937, while serving as administrator of the estate, and as President of the Nathan Oil Company, Inc., Pickens conspired with respondent, E. L. Wilson, in a fraudulent and collusive scheme and plan to acquire the property and assets of said estate and of said oil company for an amount far less than their actual worth or reasonable market value; that in pursuance of that scheme Pickens made false representations to the petitioners, not necessary to be set out here; that petitioners, in reliance thereon and at the insistence of Pickens, did, on March 3, 1937, sign an instrument drawn by Pickens' attorney authorizing the directors of Nathan Oil Company, Inc., including the said Pickens, as its president, and also authorizing Pickens, as administrator, to make and consummate a sale of all of the properties owned and claimed by the oil company and of all the properties owned by the estate, with certain immaterial exceptions, to Wilson or Pickens, or to both of them, for a total sales price of $235,000. It was further alleged that after the execution of the purported agreement Pickens, as administrator and as president of said oil company, acting in conjunction with Wilson and in furtherance of their fraudulent and collusive scheme, proceeded to liquidate the affairs and assets of the estate and of the oil company, through simulated, collusive and fraudulent transfers of the estate and properties thereof; that by means of a series of assignments and deeds executed on or after March 3, 1937, Pickens, in the name and on behalf of Nathan Oil Company, Inc., purported to convey to Wilson certain described properties in various counties in Texas; that such assignments were fictitious, simulated, collusive and fraudulent; that Wilson was not the true and actual purchaser of the property, but was the stooge and alter ego of Pickens and was merely a conduit through which Pickens sought to gain and hold title for himself; and that after March 3, 1937, the remaining assets and properties were appropriated and converted by Pickens and Wilson to their own use and benefit. It was alleged that the consideration pretended to be paid by respondents, Pickens and Wilson, for the properties acquired by them was paid out of the funds belonging to the estate and the oil company.
It was further alleged that thereafter the respondents dissolved said oil company and surrendered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re E.R.
...bar an action on which limitations has not run unless allowing the action ‘would work a grave injustice’ ” (quoting Culver v. Pickens, 142 Tex. 87, 176 S.W.2d 167, 170 (1943))). 32.Cf. Shah v. Moss, 67 S.W.3d 836, 847 (Tex.2001) (holding that “[a] plaintiff may not obtain relief under the o......
-
Hallco Texas, Inc. v. McMullen County
...(Tex.1968) (citing K & G Oil Tool & Serv. Co. v. G & G Fishing Tool Serv., 158 Tex. 594, 314 S.W.2d 782 (1958), and Culver v. Pickens, 142 Tex. 87, 176 S.W.2d 167 (1944)). 40. Sheffield Dev. Co. v. City of Glenn Heights, 140 S.W.3d 660, 671-673 (Tex.2004) (footnotes omitted). 41. Hallco I, ......
-
S. Cty. Mutual Ins. Co. v Ochoa
...take judicial notice of the orders of another court in another case unless we are supplied with proof of those orders. Culver v. Pickens, 176 S.W.2d 167, 171 (Tex. 1944); Bhalli v. Methodist Hosp., 896 S.W.2d 207, 210 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied); National County Mut. ......
-
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. McBride
...the right be then enforced, delay becomes inequitable, and operates as estoppel against the assertion of the right." Culver v. Pickens, 142 Tex. 87, 176 S.W.2d 167, 170. Laches is an affirmative defense which must be pleaded by the party relying on it. It is not incumbent upon a plaintiff t......
-
Chapter 8-5 Constructive Trust
...pet. denied).[176] Austin Lake Estates, Inc. v. Meyer, 557 S.W.2d 380, 383 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1977, no writ).[177] Culver v. Pickens, 176 S.W.2d 167, 170-71 (Tex. 1943).[178] KCM Fin. LLC v. Bradshaw, 457 S.W.3d 70, 87-8 (Tex....
-
Chapter 8-1 Temporary Injunction
...See City of Dallas v. Ellis, No. 05-16-00348-CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 1408, at *9-10 (App.— Dallas Feb. 17, 2017); Culver v. Pickens, 176 S.W.2d 167 (Tex. 1943).[25] See Keene v. Reed, 340 S.W.2d 859, 860 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1960, writ ref'd).[26] Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 65.023(......
-
Chapter 16-18 Laches
...Caldwell v. Barnes, 975 S.W.2d 535, 538 (Tex. 1998).[171] Caldwell v. Barnes, 975 S.W.2d 535, 538 (Tex. 1998).[172] Culver v. Pickens, 176 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Tex. 1943).[173] De Benavides v. Warren, 674 S.W.2d 353, 362 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (finding that when a plain......