Heard v. Lockett
| Decision Date | 01 January 1857 |
| Citation | 20 Tex. 162 |
| Parties | JAMES G. HEARD AND ANOTHER v. HENRY E. LOCKETT. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Where a party uses the name of another in suing for his own use, when he might have sued in his own name, he may change the suit into his own name by amendment. 25 Tex. 73.
Where A makes a lease to B, and C takes an under lease from B, stipulating to pay to A the rent agreed to be paid by B, but A refuses to recognize C as his tenant, and demands the rent from B, which is accordingly paid by him, B has his action against C to recover said amount.
Error from Washington. Tried below before the Hon. R. E. B. Baylor.
The petition alleged all the facts, and made the under lease a part thereof. There was a bill of exceptions, that after the plaintiff had read his petition and amended petition to the jury, and defendants' attorney had announced his defense, the attorney of plaintiff offered to read in evidence the under lease, to the reading of which defendants objected, on the ground that said under lease, although made a part of the petition, was not as such read; objection overruled, etc. The amendment struck out the words “James Baldridge, who sues for the use of,” from the original petition. Exceptions thereto overruled. The other facts are stated in the opinion.
Rogers, for plaintiffs in error, cited 2 Tex. 351.
Lockett had rented from Baldridge the Washington Hotel for the year 1855. Plaintiffs in error and Emmons, who were defendants below, gave Lockett an advance of five hundred dollars, styled by the witness a “bonus,” and took a lease of the place for 1855 from Lockett, agreeing to pay him his five hundred dollars upon taking possession, and also to pay to Baldridge one thousand dollars in quarterly installments. This contract was reduced to writing. It was further alleged and shown, that defendants below went into possession and enjoyed the premises according to contract, paid the five hundred dollars, and afterwards paid about three hundred dollars more to Lockett; that Baldridge refused to recognize Heard and Ringold as his tenants, but continued to hold Lockett responsible as his tenant, and that Lockett had fully paid Baldridge the rent for 1855; that Lockett being a tenant of Baldridge, the instrument was drawn in his favor under the expectation, then entertained by all the parties, that he would recognize Emmons, Heard and Ringold as his tenants, and discharge Lockett. Under these circumstances Lockett obtained a judgment on this obligation for the unpaid balance, and plaintiffs in error now seek to reverse it.
The first ground assigned is, that there was a change in the name of the plaintiff in the suit below. Upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Long v. D. C. Smith. W. C. Long
...upon its merits. There was certainly no error in permitting the intervenor Swearingen to recover judgment in his own name. See Heard v. Lockett, 20 Tex. 162;Price v. Wiley, 19 Tex. 142. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Affirmed.Walton & Green and J. D. & D. C. Giddings, on mo......
-
Bolivar Compress Co. v. Mallett
... ... for the use of the assignee, an amendment making the assignee ... plaintiff will be allowed. Heard v. Lockett, 20 Tex ... 162; McCullar & Co. v. Mink, 83 So. 907; Greenwood ... Grocery So. v. Bennett, 101 Miss. 573, 58 So. 482, 598 ... ...
-
W. P. Converse & Co. v. Sorley
...Thompson v. Cartwright, 1 Tex. 87; Martin v. Manning, 2 Tex. 351;Giddens v. Byer's Heirs, 12 Tex. 75;Devine v. Martin, 15 Tex. 25;Heard v. Lockett, 20 Tex. 162. 2. The next question is as to the order of the county judge and the deed to Sorley in pursuance thereof. We think we cannot better......
-
Hunter v. B. E. Porter, Inc., 11593.
...being B. E. Porter, who, in our opinion, was authorized to prosecute the suit to judgment. Authorities more or less in point are Heard v. Lockett, 20 Tex. 162; Camden Fire Ins. Ass'n v. Eckel (Tex. Com. App.) 14 S.W. (2d) The purpose of article 6636, R. S. in providing that an assignment of......