Davisson v. Eastland County

• Citation: 287 S.W. 901
• Decision Date: 17 November 1926
• Docket Number: (No. 838-4546.)
• Parties: DAVISSON v. EASTLAND COUNTY.
• Court: Supreme Court of Texas

Page 901

287 S.W. 901

DAVISSON v. EASTLAND COUNTY.

(No. 838-4546.)

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

November 17, 1926.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Eleventh Supreme Judicial District.

Action by Eastland County against G. A. Davisson, who filed a cross-action. An order of the district court overruling plaintiff's motion to dissolve a temporary writ of injunction granted defendant was reversed, and a judgment dissolving the injunction rendered, by the Court of Civil Appeals (277 S. W. 779), and defendant brings error. Judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and the order of the district court affirmed.

Conner & McRae, of Eastland, for plaintiff in error.

Chandler & Chandler, of Stephenville, and Turner, Seaberry & Springer and W. J. Barnes, Co. Atty., all of Eastland, for defendant in error.

BISHOP, J.

Eastland county, defendant in error, filed suit against plaintiff in error, G. A. Davisson, sole owner of Fleming-Stitzer Road Building Company, alleging that the county had entered into a contract with the road building company, by the terms of which said company had agreed to buy and pay for $4,500,000 road bonds issued by said county for the construction of roads, and said company was awarded the contract to build and construct the roads, for the construction of which said bonds were issued; that said company had taken said bonds, but had not fully paid for same, and that there was a balance due on the bonds purchased by said company, the sum of $64,000, for which the county sought judgment.

By the answer of plaintiff in error issue was joined. In his answer, by way of cross-action, he sought judgment against the county for the sum of $123,873.73. He alleged that the county agreed, contracted, and bound itself to pay said company the whole of the proceeds arising from the sale of said bonds; that $426,113.45 of said proceeds were by the county deposited in a bank which failed, thereby rendering this sum unavailable to pay for the construction of roads under the terms of said contract; that, had this sum been available and expended in the construction of roads as contemplated, he would have made a profit of not less than 15 per cent., amounting to $70,500. He also alleged that he had furnished material and labor in the construction of roads under the terms of said contract, for which he had not been paid by the county, in the sum of $53,373.73.

While this case was pending in the district court, plaintiff in error filed...