Hassell v. Steinmann
| Citation | 132 S.W. 948 |
| Parties | HASSELL et al. v. STEINMANN. |
| Decision Date | 03 December 1910 |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Action by Lizzie Steinmann, executrix, against Irma Hassell and another. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants bring error. Reformed, and affirmed on condition.
Short & Field, for plaintiffs in error. K. R. Craig, for defendant in error.
This suit was brought by the defendant in error, Lizzie Steinmann, against the plaintiffs in error upon a promissory note for the sum of $850. The petition alleges that Irma Von Haxthausen executed her note to the plaintiff on the 14th day of January, 1907, due on the 5th day of January, 1908, with interest from date at the rate of 8 per cent. per annum, and providing for the payment of 10 per cent. attorney's fees if not paid at maturity, and placed in the hands of an attorney for collection; that the same was due and had been placed in the hands of her attorney, who brought the action for the purpose of collecting the same, and that plaintiff had contracted to pay her attorney the 10 per cent. specified in the note for his services; that the defendant since the execution of said note intermarried with Jess Hassell, her codefendant, and that she is possessed of a separate estate out of which plaintiff's debt can be made. The petition was filed on the 20th day of February, 1908.
The defendants pleaded a general denial and specially, among other things, that the note sued on was executed for borrowed money, and secured by a deed of trust on three lots in Stemmons' addition to the city of Oak Cliff, which she at the time believed to be the funds of the plaintiff; that she had learned since said transaction that the funds lent her and for which said note was executed really belonged to defendant. The alleged facts upon which defendant bases her claim of ownership of the money are, in substance, that she is the daughter of Meicel and Isabelle Haxthausen; that her father died in 1885, leaving a widow, defendant's mother, and four minor children, of which defendant was the youngest; that her mother caused a policy of insurance for $2,000 to be issued upon her life payable in case of her death to the defendant; that her mother died in 1896, when defendant was 12 years of age, and Charles Steinmann, learning that a policy of insurance for $2,000 had been provided to defray her living expenses during her young life, and being tempted by the opportunity to obtain custody of said fund, took defendant to his home to be reared and cared for; that Charles Steinmann was appointed guardian of the person and estate of defendant by the county court of Dallas county, and as such guardian collected the policy of insurance of $2,000; that he made settlements from time to time of the estate of his ward until the 16th day of May, 1903, when he made the sixth annual settlement showing funds in his possession belonging to his ward, amounting to $1,405; that defendant was entitled under the terms of her grandfather's will to the interest in his estate of $8,000; that her guardian, by representations made to the executor of said will, received in July and August, 1903, during the existence of his guardianship, sums of money which are itemized in said answer, aggregating $5,193.70, all of which he concealed from the court which had appointed him guardian, and withheld from his account of said estate; that in the month of September, 1903, her guardian caused an application to be made to the district court of Dallas county for the removal of her disabilities as a minor in order to terminate his liability as her guardian, and to assist him in appropriating her estate to his own use without incurring liability for the sums received from the estate of her grandfather; that a decree was obtained in the district court removing her disabilities, and thereupon her guardian undertook to make his final settlement in the county court and to obtain a discharge; that a final settlement was prepared in which there was a balance of the funds derived from the policy of insurance issued upon the life of her mother shown to be due amounting to $1,246.80; that there was due, in addition to said sum of the funds which had been received from the estate of her grandfather, at that time $5,192.52½, which was withheld from said account and concealed from the court; that her guardian caused a receipt to be prepared, which at his request she signed and acknowledged before a notary public, showing she had received from her guardian the balance of $1,246.80 shown upon said settlement, and her guardian was discharged; that afterwards, on the 1st day of May, 1904, at which time said defendant had attained her majority, her guardian received the further sum from the estate of her grandfather of $2,040, making the entire sum due from said Steinmann to her of $8,479.12; that her guardian, who was the husband of the plaintiff in this action, died in the month of June, 1906; that he had no property or effects at the time of his death except the said fund which belonged to defendant, and which he had taken and appropriated to his own use with the intent to deprive defendant of it; that administration was taken out on the estate of Charles Steinmann in the county court of Dallas county, Tex., and that the plaintiff had no property or effects save and except that which had been set apart to her out of the estate of her husband by the orders of said court, all of which said estate, of whatever it consisted, was acquired with the trust funds in the hands of said deceased, which was really the property of defendant; that at the time she applied to the plaintiff for the loan which is represented by the note sued on she had no knowledge of the facts related in said answer,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Citizens Nat. Bank of Orange, Va. v. Waugh
...W. 600; Reed v. Taylor (Tex. Civ. App.) 129 S. W. 864; Miller v. West Texas Lumber Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 131 S. W. 608; Hassell v. Steinmann (Tex. Civ. App.) 132 S. W. 948; Salisbury v. Stewart, 15 Utah, 308, 49 P. 777, 62 Am. St. Rep. 934; Conway v. American Nat. Bank, 146 Va. 357, 131 S. E......
-
Beckham v. Scott
...of Moore v. Brown, 89 S. W. 310. See, also, Lanier v. Jones (Sup.) 136 S. W. 255. The holding of this court in the case of Hassell v. Steinmann, 132 S. W. 948, was based on the case of O'Connell v. Rugely, 48 Tex. Civ. App. 456, 107 S. W. 151, and similar holdings by the Courts of Civil App......
-
Bohlssen v. Bohlssen
...cited in appellees' brief which fully sustain this conclusion: Tannery v. Pirtle (Tex. Civ. App.) 19 S.W.(2d) 862; Hassell v. Steinmann (Tex. Civ. App.) 132 S. W. 948; De Berry v. Wootters (Tex. Civ. App.) 57 S. W. 885; Whitfield v. Burrell, 54 Tex. Civ. App. 567, 118 S. W. 153; Holman v. W......
-
Bybee v. Embree-McLean Carriage Co.
...stipulated in the contract. Hassell v. Steinmann (opinion by this court delivered December 3, 1910, and not yet officially published) 132 S. W. 948; Reed v. Taylor, 129 S. W. 865. No other objection is made to the recovery of attorney's fees. It is conceded in the appellant's brief that a r......