Foran v. Smith, 12040
Decision Date | 15 February 1950 |
Docket Number | No. 12040,12040 |
Citation | 228 S.W.2d 251 |
Parties | FORAN v. SMITH. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Fischer, Wood, Burney & Glass, Corpus Christi, for appellant.
Neal B. Marriott, Corpus Christi, for appellee.
This suit was instituted by Clinton E. Smith on December 10, 1945, in the 117th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, against Lester Foran and Rodney S. King, seeking to recover as follows:
First, against both of the defendants upon a certain promissory note in the principal sum of $1200, dated December 30, 1944, payable to Gulf Star Foundries (which was the trade name of Clinton E. Smith), due June 30, 1945, providing for interest and attorney's fees, and signed by Lester Foran and Rodney S. King.
Second, against the defendant Lester Foran only, upon open account for office facilities furnished for the months of November and December, 1944, and January, 1945, at $50 per month, and one typewriter and two fluorescent lights, amounting to $95.26, making an aggregate sum of $245.26.
Third, upon open account against both defendants for the sum of $385.03, upon a claim described by plaintiff in paragraph No. VI of his petition, as follows:
On January 2, 1946, the defendants filed an answer in which they plead lack of consideration for said note, denied indebtedness on said accounts and further asked for an accounting in the following language appearing in paragraph IV of this answer: 'The defendant Rodney S. King expressly denies, as does the defendant Lester Foran, that he is indebted in any manner to the plaintiff on account of transactions had by them as co-partners under the name
On June 20, 1949, defendant Lester Foran filed his first amended original answer, which was very similar to the original answer except three unnumbered paragraphs were added after paragraph IV and generally referred to as sub-paragraphs 2nd, 3rd and 4th of paragraph IV. These three paragraphs read as follows:
'This Defendant would further show that on or about the 24th day of November, 1944, under and by virtue of an agreement made and entered into between the Plaintiff, this Defendant and Rodney S. King, the Plaintiff sold and conveyed unto this Defendant and to Rodney S. King, all of those certain flanged fittings and valves shown in Schedule 'A' attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, of a reasonable value in excess of Fifty-Eight Thousand ($58,000.00) Dollars; that under the terms of such agreement delivery of such flanged fittings and valves was not made to this Defendant or to Rodney S. King, but they were retained by Clinton E. Smith, the Plaintiff herein, d/b/a 'Gulf Star Foundries', who agreed that he would cause the machining and preparation of such material for sale, and that upon completion of such materials for sale, would sell same for the account of this Defendant and for the account of the Defendant Rodney S. King; that at all times heretofore the Plaintiff, Clinton E. Smith, has had all of such materials in his possession, under his control and that he assumed the responsibility for the sale of such products and agreed to account to this Defendant for his pro rata share thereof.
'That the products shown on Schedule 'A' were at the time owned in proportion by this Defendant and the Defendant Rodney S. King, twenty-five per cent (25%) by this Defendant and seventy-five per cent (75%) by the Defendant Rodney S. King; that subsequent to such time the defendant Rodney S. King sold to the plaintiff his interest in such materials but that this Defendant is still entitled to receive an accounting for one-fourth (1/4th) of the proceeds from any sale of such materials and in the event that a portion of such materials have not been sold, then this Defendant is entitled to one-fourth (1/4th) of such materials in kind.
'That this defendant has information to believe and does believe that heretofore the Plaintiff, Clinton E. Smith has sold a portion of such materials for large sums of money and although often requested to do so has failed and refused and still fails and refuses to account to this defendant for same.'
The record does not show that any pleading was thereafter filed by plaintiff, but we do find the following paragraph contained in plaintiff's first supplemental petition, which was filed some forty days prior to the amended answer, to-wit:
The record does not show that any exceptions to the pleadings were ever called to the attention of the trial judge, or that he at any time made any rulings upon the pleadings before hearing the evidence. Therefore, under the provisions of Rule 90, T.R.C.P., every defect, omission or fault in the pleadings, either of form or substance, is deemed to have been waived by the party seeking a reversal.
The trial was to the court without the intervention of a jury and resulted in judgment in favor of Clinton E. Smith against both defendants, Foran and King, upon said note for the sum of $1635.48, and against Foran only, in the sum of $247.76. Smith took a non-suit as to his claim against both defendants for the sum of $358.03 and no recovery was had thereon. The judgment by necessary implication denied defendants any recovery upon their cross-action. From that judgment Lester Foran alone has prosecuted this appeal.
At appellant's request, the trial court made and filed findings of fact and conclusions of law, to-wit:
'Findings of Fact.
'Conclusions of Law.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Vanity Fair Properties v. Billingsley
...376 S.W.2d 808 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1964, no writ); Nuse v. Kormeier, 351 S.W.2d 382 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1961, no writ); Foran v. Smith, 228 S.W.2d 251 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1950, no writ); Shroff v. Deaton, 220 S.W.2d 489 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1949, no By one point of error ca......
-
Royal v. Cameron
...burden is on the complaining party to show the verdict is contrary to the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence. Foran v. Smith, (Tex.Civ.App.) 1950, 228 S.W.2d 251, no writ history; Wright v. Mack Motor Truck Corp., (Tex.Civ.App.) 1960, 336 S.W.2d 831, no writ history; United States L......
-
Redman v. Bennett
...If this finding should be deficient in any respect, it does not disturb the other findings made that justify the judgment. Foran v. Smith, 228 S.W.2d 251, 256 (Tex.Civ.App.) 1950, Moreover, in a non-jury case, the trial court is the judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight t......
-
Pope v. American National Insurance Co., 430
...he gives any reason at all. Gulf Land Company v. Atlantic Refining Company, 134 Tex. 59, 131 S.W.2d 73, 84 (Tex.Sup., 1939); Foran v. Smith, 228 S.W.2d 251, (Tex.Civ.App., San Antonio, 1950, n.w.h.); Golden State Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Adams, 340 S.W.2d 77, 80, (Tex.Civ.App., Ft. ......