Interstate Building & Loan Ass'n v. Hunter

• Decision Date: 17 May 1899
• Citation: 51 S.W. 530
• Parties: INTERSTATE BUILDING & LOAN ASS'N v. HUNTER.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

51 S.W. 530

INTERSTATE BUILDING & LOAN ASS'N v. HUNTER.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

May 17, 1899.

Error from district court, Bexar county; J. L. Camp, Judge.

Action by H. M. Hunter against the Interstate Building & Loan Association. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

C. A. Keller, for plaintiff in error. Wurzbach & Wurzbach, for defendant in error.

JAMES, C. J.

This is an action by H. M. Hunter to recover of the association the sum of $5,000, as the matured value of 50 shares of its stock, less a certain indebtedness due by plaintiff to the association, and for cancellation of plaintiff's notes and deed of trust. The petition alleges that on or about November 1, 1889, plaintiff subscribed for, and became owner of, 50 shares of defendant's stock, of the par value of $100 each, and agreed to pay 60 cents per share monthly thereon, or $30 monthly in the aggregate; that defendant's agent represented to plaintiff that the subscription was to continue for the term of 7 years, or 84 months, at which time the said shares were to mature, and be paid for by defendant to plaintiff at the rate of $100 per share, or the full sum of $5,000; that plaintiff, relying on said representation, became a stockholder as aforesaid, and received a certificate executed to him by the corporation for 50 shares of stock; that, in consideration of plaintiff's paying said monthly sums until the same should mature, and of his compliance with the terms and conditions and by-laws printed on the front of the certificate, defendant agreed to pay him $100 for each of said shares at their maturity; that plaintiff had complied with the terms of the contract of subscription, and had paid cash and every installment for the full period of 84 months, by reason whereof defendant was obligated, on November 1, 1896, to pay plaintiff the sum of $5,000. Then, after alleging the sums due by plaintiff to defendant, the petition prays for judgment for the balance, with interest, and for cancellation of plaintiff's obligation, etc.

We do not deem it necessary to state the defendant's pleadings, nor do we deem it necessary to discuss any assignment of error except the second and seventh, which, according to the views we entertain, are decisive of the appeal, and probably of the case.

The second assignment objects to the testimony of the representation alleged to have been made by the agents to plaintiff at the time of making the contract, on (among the grounds) the ground that the testimony varied and added to the terms of the written contract between the parties. The seventh assignment alleges error in the court submitting the following issue: "Did the authorized agents of defendant contract and agree with plaintiff, at the time he purchased the stock, that said shares of stock would mature in eighty-four months, to be paid for by de...