Graham v. Dean, A-537.
| Decision Date | 16 May 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. A-537.,A-537. |
| Parties | GRAHAM v. DEAN et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Hay & Hudspeth and Leo S. Hay, all of Lubbock, for plaintiffs.
Bean, Evans & Croslin and Robert H. Bean, all of Lubbock, for defendant.
Plaintiffs employed defendant to haul a cotton conditioner machine by truck over the public highways from Dallas to Spade, Texas. Defendant negligently damaged the machine in unloading it at destination. The defendant held a "specialized motor carrier" permit from the Railroad Commission authorizing him to transport farm machinery and certain other goods over the highways in certain parts of West Texas, but did not have a permit to haul gin machinery. It was unlawful for defendant to haul the machine without the permit. Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. Art. 911b; Vernon's Ann.P.C. Art. 1690b. The plaintiffs set out the contract and sought judgment against defendant for the damages to the machine. The defendant alleged the illegality of the contract and sought to avoid liability on account thereof.
The Court of Civil Appeals has certified to this Court the question as to whether, under the circumstances, the illegality of the transaction precluded a recovery by plaintiffs against the defendant for the damages to the machine occasioned by the negligence of the defendant in handling the same.
The certificate from the Court of Civil Appeals does not disclose whether plaintiffs did or did not know that the defendant did not have a certificate from the Railroad Commission which would permit him to haul the machinery. However, the transcript has been sent up with the certificate, and the findings of the trial court embodied therein contain a finding that plaintiffs did not know that the defendant did not have such a permit. Originally, the statute authorized the Court of Civil Appeals to send up the record with a certified question only where there was a dissenting opinion. Rev.Stats., Art. 1853; Rule 464, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Consequently, it was held that in the ordinary certified question, where there was no dissenting opinion, the Supreme Court could not look to the record for information not contained in the certificate. Pohle v. Robertson, 102 Tex. 274, 115 S.W. 1166; McManus v. Cash & Luckel, 101 Tex. 261, 108 S.W. 800, 804. However, in the above cases the Court apparently recognized that in those cases where the Court of Civil Appeals was authorized to send up the record, the Court could look to the transcript for information not contained in the certificate. This would seem to necessarily follow, for obviously the purpose in requiring the transcript to accompany the certificate is to make it available for the enlightenment of the Supreme Court. See also Watkins v. Minter, 107 Tex. 428, 180 S.W 227; Houston North Shore R. Co. v. Tyrrell, 128 Tex. 248, 99 S.W.2d 786, 108 A.L. R. 1508. A certified question may now be accompanied with the entire record in any case. Rule 466. We hold that where the record accompanies the certificate the Supreme Court may look to the findings of fact as embodied therein as the basis for its answers. Our answer in this case is based on such finding.
The rule that a court will not entertain a suit growing out of an illegal transaction is not always applicable where the parties are not in pari delicto. 17 C.J.S., Contracts, § 274, p. 660; 12 Am.Jur. 734; 10 Tex.Jur. 239; American...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Independent Clearing House Co.
...Restatement of Contracts ? 599 (1932); Oakes v. Guarantee Ins. Co., 573 S.W.2d 899, 902 (Tex.Civ.App.1978) (quoting Graham v. Dean, 144 Tex. 61, 188 S.W.2d 372 (1945)). However, in some cases "the interest of the public, rather than the equitable standing of individual parties, is of determ......
-
International Bank of Commerce-Brownsville v. International Energy Development Corp.
...and believes the contract is lawful, the general rule that an illegal contract is unenforceable does not apply. See Graham v. Dean, 144 Tex. 61, 188 S.W.2d 372, 373 (1945) (parties not in pari delicto ). Permitting IBC to assert its intentional misconduct as a defense to liability for the i......
-
Official Committee v. Coopers & Lybrand
...may not be able to do so on this ground. See, e.g., Lewis v. Davis, 145 Tex. 468, 199 S.W.2d 146, 151 (Tex.1947); Graham v. Dean, 144 Tex. 61, 188 S.W.2d 372, 373 (1945); Am. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Tabor, 111 Tex. 155, 230 S.W. 397, 399-400 (1921). The rule in Texas, even in the case of an unlaw......
-
Centex Corp. v. Dalton
...facts known to the party opposing enforcement and where the plaintiff had no intention of violating the law. Graham v. Dean, 144 Tex. 61, 188 S.W.2d 372, 373 (1945); Oakes v. Guarantee Ins. Co., 573 S.W.2d 899, 902 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Even if the contract is "i......