Durham v. Scrivener
| Decision Date | 07 June 1923 |
| Docket Number | (No. 6343.) |
| Citation | 259 S.W. 606 |
| Parties | DURHAM et al. v. SCRIVENER et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Travis County; Ireland Graves, Judge.
Suit by Charles P. Scrivener, in which W. B. Wortham intervened as coplaintiff, against R. L. Durham and others. From the judgment rendered, certain defendants appeal. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, with directions.
See, also, 228 S. W. 282.
C. L. Bass, of Wichita Falls, R. H. Ward, of Houston, W. D. Gordon, of Beaumont, and John W. Hornsby and N. A. Rector, both of Austin, for appellants.
H. S. Bonham and Dougherty & Dougherty, all of Beeville, and J. D. Moore, of Austin, for appellees.
On May 9, 1919, appellee Scrivener, for a consideration of $1,600 to him paid by W. M. Campbell, conveyed to Campbell his interest in the 621-acre B. F. Blount survey, 331-acre A. A. Durfee survey, and 640-acre Lucinda Meadows survey, and on the same day Scrivener and appellee Wortham, for the consideration of $3,400, conveyed to said Campbell their interest in an oil permit granted by the state of Texas to the Durfee school land survey. The interest claimed by Scrivener in the patented lands was an undivided one-fourth interest. Scrivener and Campbell claimed to own the oil permit.
On October 17, 1919, appellee Scrivener brought suit to cancel said transfers, on the ground that the same were obtained by fraud. Wortham intervened as coplaintiff, alleging that he was joint owner with Scrivener as to said lands and permit. The suit was brought against Durham and Campbell, upon the alleged ground that Durham was the attorney of appellees, and that he secretly acted as the agent of Campbell, and made fraudulent representations to appellees, with the knowledge and consent of Campbell, as to a material matter, whereby appellees were induced to transfer said property to Campbell for a grossly inadequate price. It is alleged that the other defendants were claiming an interest in said lands by purchase under Campbell, but that none of them were innocent purchasers; that they sold or leased some of said lands to innocent purchasers. Appellees also prayed for general relief.
Appellants presented a plea in abatement, which was overruled. In addition to a general denial by all of the appellants, they pleaded ratification, and, with the exception of Durham and Campbell, they alleged that they were innocent purchasers. Clough and Lewis were made parties defendant, but as the judgment was in their favor, and no complaint is made to the same, that fact need not be further noticed.
Findings of Fact.
The case was tried upon the following special issues:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cox v. Davison
...debt. Stroud v. Guffey, 3 S.W.2d 592 (Tex.Civ.App.1927), affirmed 16 S.W.2d 527, 64 A.L.R. 730 (Tex.Com.App.1929); Durham v. Scrivener, 259 S.W. 606, 614 (Tex.Civ.App.1923), affirmed 270 S.W. 161 (Tex.Com.App.1925); Rosse v. Northern Pump Co., 353 S.W.2d 287 (Tex.Civ.App.1962, writ ref., n.......
-
Powell v. Johnson
...oil therefrom, herself or by lessees, subject to subsequent adjustment of the relative rights of all interested parties. Durham v. Scrivener, Tex.Civ.App., 259 S.W. 606, affirmed Tex.Com.App., 270 S.W. 161; Stroud v. Guffey, Tex.Civ.App., 3 S.W.2d 592, affirmed Tex.Com.App., 16 S.W.2d 527, ......
-
Stout v. Oliveira
...carefully each case cited by appellees on this phase of the case and regard none of them in point. Those cases are: Durham v. Scrivener, Tex.Civ. App., 259 S.W. 606; Laucheimer & Sons v. Coop, 99 Tex. 386, 89 S.W. 1061, 90 S.W. 1098; San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Shankle & Lane, Tex.Civ.Ap......
-
Herrington v. Ayres
...S. W. 1139; Long v. Shelton (Tex. Civ. App.) 155 S. W. 945; Thomason v. Berwick, 52 Tex. Civ. App. 153, 113 S. W. 567; Durham v. Scrivener (Tex. Civ. App.) 259 S. W. 606; Huling v. Moore (Tex. Civ. App.) 194 S. W. For still a third reason the judgment was proper, we think, because even if t......