Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Ginther
| Decision Date | 15 October 1902 |
| Citation | 70 S.W. 96 |
| Parties | GALVESTON, H. & S. A. RY. CO. v. GINTHER (PATTERSON et al., Interveners.)<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, El Paso county; J. M. Goggin, Judge.
Action by Paul Ginther against the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company. Patterson & Buckley intervened. Judgment for interveners. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Baker, Botts, Baker & Lovett, and Beall & Kemp, for appellant. Millard Patterson and C. N. Buckler, for appellees.
Paul Ginther entered into a contract with Patterson & Buckler, attorneys at law, whereby he transferred to them one-third of whatever might be recovered by them in a suit to be instituted by them for damages arising from personal injuries sustained by said Ginther. The contract was made before the institution of the suit. Afterwards the suit was instituted by the attorneys, and while it was pending a compromise was made between appellant and Ginther, whereby the former paid the latter the sum of $2,500 in full settlement of his claim. When the compromise was made and the money paid to Ginther, appellant had actual notice of the transfer by Ginther to Patterson & Buckler of one-third of what might be recovered in the suit. Patterson & Buckler intervened in the suit Ginther had instituted against appellant, setting up his insolvency, and actual notice of the transfer of one-third of what might be recovered by Ginther by suit or compromise, and praying for judgment for the sum of $833 1/3, being one-third of the amount paid to Ginther. It was admitted by Ginther that he had received $2,500 in full settlement of his claim against appellant, and the only contest was as to the right of Patterson & Buckler to recover one-third of the amount. The court rendered judgment for the amount claimed in favor of interveners. The appellant contends that the assignability of a cause of action, or any portion thereof, based on damages arising from personal injuries, depends on the institution of a suit for such damages by the person injured, and that any attempted transfer of any interest in such damages before the institution of such suit is utterly invalid. The decisions in the cases of Railroad Co. v. Miller (Tex. Civ. App.) 53 S. W. 709, and Railroad Co. v. Andrews, 67 S. W. 923, 4 Tex. Ct. Rep. 780, are authorities in point directly against appellant's contention. In the latter case a writ of error was refused by the supreme court.
The judgment is affirmed.
1....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. James B. & Charles J. Stubbs
...Court in G., H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Ginther, 96 Tex. 295, 72 S. W. 166, in which the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 161, 70 S. W. 96, was affirmed. That contract said: "I agree to give and hereby assign to them one-third of whatever may be recovered in said suit, o......
-
Browne v. King
...of an interest in the cause of action. None of them has ever been extended beyond choses in action. Railway v. Ginther, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 161, 70 S. W. 96, Id., 96 Tex. 295, 72 S. W. 166. If, as contended by appellant, the Acebos had contracted not to compromise the lawsuit, such contract w......
-
Wichita Falls Electric Co. v. Chancellor & Bryan
...Court in G., H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Ginther, 96 Tex. 295, 72 S. W. 166, in which the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 161, 70 S. W. 96, was affirmed. That contract said: `I agree to give and hereby assign to them one-third of whatever may be recovered in said suit by......
-
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Ginther
...in which Patterson & Buckler, plaintiff's attorneys, intervene. From a judgment for interveners, affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (70 S. W. 96), defendant brings error. Baker, Botts, Baker & Lovett and Beall & Kemp, for plaintiff in error. Patterson & Buckler, for defendants in error.......