Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank of Dallas v. Harrison, 13983.
Decision Date | 01 December 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 13983.,13983. |
Citation | 135 S.W.2d 573 |
Parties | DALLAS JOINT STOCK LAND BANK OF DALLAS v. HARRISON et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Clay County; Earl P. Hall, Judge.
Action by M. E. Harrison and another against the Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank of Dallas for damages for alleged fraud and deceit in connection with the sale of land. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Lawther, Cramer, Perry & Johnson, of Dallas, for appellant.
Stine, Bunting & Stine, of Henrietta, for appellees.
At a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank of Dallas, a corporation, held on November 14th, 1934, the following resolution was passed:
On July 15th, 1936, the Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank of Dallas, by H. W. Ferguson, its president, as seller, and W. B. Allen and M. E. Harrison, of Byers, Clay County, as buyers, executed a sales contract, by the terms of which the Bank agreed to sell and Allen and Harrison agreed to buy a tract of 440 acres in Clay County, for a total consideration of $15,000, of which $1,500 was to be paid in cash and the balance evidenced by three promissory notes, one for $12,000 payable in 20 annual instalments, and two notes for $750 each, one maturing November 1st, 1936, and the other November 1st, 1937.
The contract embodied these provisions:
Thereafter, the Bank executed to Allen and Harrison its deed, dated August 4th, 1936, but not delivered until September 21st, 1936, stipulating that for the consideration expressed in the sales contract, it "has granted, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, sell and convey unto the said W. B. Allen and M. E. Harrison, of the County of Clay, State of Texas, except as below stated, all that certain lot, tract or parcel of land situated in the County of Clay, State of Texas, and described as follows: (Here follows description of the 440 acres covered by the sales contract).
"Attest: J. A. Mounts, Assistant Secretary." And duly acknowledged (as the evidence introduced showed).
W. B. Allen and M. E. Harrison instituted this suit against the Bank to recover damages for alleged fraud and deceit, which induced them to purchase the 440 acres in controversy. The sales contract and deed were averred, followed by allegations that plaintiffs' execution and acceptance of same was induced by representations made to them by certain duly authorized agents of the Bank, including one J. A. Mounts, that 340 acres of the land was free of any oil and gas lease, while in fact there was then an outstanding, valid and duly recorded oil and gas lease on the entire 440 acre tract, in favor of the Texas Company, executed by the Bank of date October, 1932, running for ten years from its date and as long thereafter as oil is found in paying quantities. That plaintiffs paid the defendant the cash consideration of $1,500 and executed the notes, as stipulated in the sales contract; that had the 340 acres been free of the prior outstanding oil and gas lease, it would have been worth $10 per acre more than it is worth with said lease outstanding; by reason of all of which plaintiffs have sustained damages in the sum of $3,400, for which a recovery was sought.
The answer of the defendant included a general and special demurrer, general denial and specific verified denial of agency of any of the persons alleged by plaintiffs to have made the misrepresentations which induced them to enter into the sales contract and to accept defendant's deed to the 440 acres in controversy.
Trial was before a jury, and in connection with special issues submitted, the court gave these general instructions and definitions:
Findings of the jury in answer to certain special issues were adverse to plaintiffs' asserted right to bind the defendant by misrepresentations of C. E. Harding, C. W. Filey and C. B. Harder, alleged to have been made by them while acting as the duly authorized agents of the defendant. Hence, the pleadings and evidence relating to those persons need not be further noticed.
But in answer to special issues Nos. 13 to 18, inclusive, the jury found that J. A. Mounts, as agent of defendant, represented to plaintiffs that only 100 acres of the 440 acres described in the deed was under an oil and gas lease; that the statement so made to plaintiffs by Mounts was within his actual authority, and also within the apparent scope of his authority; that plaintiffs believed said statement of J. A. Mounts that only 100 acres of the 440 acre tract was under an oil and gas lease, to be true, and were induced thereby to buy the land from the defendant.
According to further findings of the jury, the market value of the 340 acres in controversy in September, 1936, with the oil and gas lease then outstanding in favor of the Texas Company, was $25 per acre; but had the same been then free of said lease, its market value would have been $35 per acre, a difference of $10 per...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank of Dallas v. Harrison
-
Katz v. Maddox
...1015; Stephenson v. Ettie, Tex.Civ.App., 145 S.W.2d 335; Brown v. Connor, Tex.Civ.App., 140 S.W.2d 495; Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank v. Harrison, Tex.Civ.App., 135 S.W.2d 573, 581; White v. Greene, Tex.Civ.App., 129 S.W.2d The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded. ......
-
Smith v. Smith, 5990
...failure of the opposite party to rebut it, where it is obvious that such could be easily done. In the case of Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank of Dallas v. Harrison, 135 S.W.2d 573, Justice Dunklin held for the Fort Worth Court of Civil Appeals that the failure of a party to take advantage of a......
-
C. V. Hill & Co. v. Fricke
...one claimed to be the agent of another. This court discussed that point in the recent case of Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank of Dallas v. M. E. Harrison et al., Tex.Civ. App., 135 S.W.2d 573, opinion written by Chief Justice Dunklin. We also cite 2 Tex. Jur. p. 388, sect. 8, as bearing upon t......