Johnson v. Peckham

Decision Date09 November 1938
Docket NumberNo. 7205.,7205.
Citation120 S.W.2d 786
PartiesJOHNSON v. PECKHAM.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

A full and clear statement of the case was made in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, reported in 98 S.W.2d 408.That court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause for another trial.Since we have concluded that it entered the correct judgment, and that the case must be retried, it is not thought that a full restatement is necessary or desirable in this opinion.

Peckham and Johnson were operating two oil and gas leases, owning equal shares in the leases and sharing equally the profits and losses of the enterprise.They entered into a contract whereby Peckham agreed to purchase Johnson's interest for $1,500.The consideration of $1,500 was for an undivided one-half interest in the entire enterprise, but it developed that Johnson had parted with certain interests, and in order to complete the sale and deliver to Peckham that for which he had contracted it was necessary to purchase these outstanding interests and adjust an oil payment obligation outstanding against Johnson's interest.Accordingly there was deducted from the $1,500 consideration the amount necessary to perfect title to the full half interest, and Peckham paid Johnson the balance remaining.Shortly thereafter Peckham sold and delivered the entire property to third parties for a consideration of $10,500.Negotiations for this sale were begun, according to the findings, prior to the time when Peckham contracted for the purchase of Johnson's interest, and no disclosure was made by Peckham to Johnson of the fact that these negotiations were pending.In the trial court Johnson was awarded judgment against Peckham for $3,750, arrived at by deducting $1,500, the price paid by Peckham for the half interest, from $5,250, one-half of the amount for which Peckham sold the entire property to third persons.

The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the cause upon two grounds.One ground was that the damages were measured by an incorrect rule.It was held that, since the consideration of $1,500 was to be paid for an entire one-half interest, and since it developed that Johnson owned less than that interest, his damages should have been apportioned in accordance with his actual interest and not on the basis of a one-half interest.It would appear that the record required that holding, but for the reason assigned below, the question is not before us for decision and we make no authoritative pronouncement thereon.

Defendant in error points out that plaintiff in error did not complain of that ruling or decision of the Court of Civil Appeals in his motion for rehearing therein and contends that this court is therefore not authorized to consider the assignments in the application for writ of error complaining thereof.We have made a careful examination of the motion for rehearing filed in the Court of Civil Appeals and have concluded that it does not at all assign such ruling or decision of that court as error.It is well established by court rule and decisions that this court will not review questions not presented to the Court of Civil Appeals in a motion for rehearing therein.Rule No. 1 Governing Procedure in the Supreme Court;Savage v. Rhea, Tex.Com.App., 33 S.W.2d 429, and authorities there cited.

It is but due counsel that we make this observation: It appears that there was uncertainty in the minds for counsel for each party as to the ruling of the Court of Civil Appeals in its original opinion on this question.That doubtless was the reason such ruling was not assigned as error in the motion for rehearing.All doubt and uncertainty as to this ruling were removed in the opinion on rehearing and a second motion for rehearing was not filed.To our minds the original opinion clearly sustained the assignments presenting the matter.Be that as it may, the rule is fixed and unyielding that the question must be presented to the Court of Civil Appeals in a motion for rehearing as a predicate to...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
128 cases
  • Yeckel v. Abbott, No. 03-04-00713-CV (Tex. App. 6/4/2009)
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • June 04, 2009
    ...Foundation. Consequently, it was not necessary for appellees to prove that the Foundation actually relied upon Yeckel to fulfill his fiduciary obligation to disclose matters related to his compensation and was injured through that reliance. Johnson, 120 S.W.2d at 788; see Schlumberger, 959 S.W.2d at 177-81. Based on these supreme court decisions, we conclude that the probate court's instruction was legally correct and did not constitute an abuse of discretion. We overrule Yeckel's thirdtrial court did not err in refusing to submit special issue to jury inquiring whether one partner relied on other partner to make disclosure about prior negotiations for sale of property); cf. Schlumberger, 959 S.W.2d at 181 (distinguishing Johnson by noting that there was "no evidence of a partnership or other confidential relationship between Schlumberger and the Swansons"). Here, Yeckel was a fiduciary to the Foundation. Consequently, it was not necessary for appellees to prove thatthat fiduciaries have a duty to disclose material facts within their knowledge to the beneficiary, and that, consequently, whether the beneficiary relied upon the fiduciary to make the disclosure is "not a material inquiry." See Johnson v. Peckham, 120 S.W.2d 786, 788 (Tex. 1938) (holding that trial court did not err in refusing to submit special issue to jury inquiring whether one partner relied on other partner to make disclosure about prior negotiations for sale of property); cf....
  • Johnson v. J. Hiram Moore, Ltd.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • December 21, 1988
    ...a high duty, one of the highest duties recognized in law, the duty to deal with one another with the utmost good faith and most scrupulous honesty. Huffington v. Upchurch, 532 S.W.2d 576, 579 (Tex.1976); Johnson v. Peckham, 132 Tex. 148, 120 S.W.2d 786, 788 (1938). Having an additional landlord tenant relationship with one's partners does not diminish this duty. Johnson's attempt to recast this case in landlord-tenant terms would make the additional relationship a complete...
  • Environmental Procedures, Inc. v. Guidry
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 03, 2009
    ...consulting him" (emphasis added)). A formal fiduciary relationship is one created by law or by the nature of the contract between the parties. Peckham v. Johnson, 98 S.W.2d 408, 416 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1936), aff'd, 132 Tex. 148, 120 S.W.2d 786 (1938). The existence of a formal fiduciary relationship is determined by the relationship between the parties, and if such a relationship is established, questions of whether one party relied on or confided in the other are immaterial.existence of a formal fiduciary relationship is determined by the relationship between the parties, and if such a relationship is established, questions of whether one party relied on or confided in the other are immaterial. Johnson v. Peckham, 132 Tex. 148, 151-52, 120 S.W.2d 786, 788 (1938) (addressing the formal fiduciary relationship of partners).37 In this case, however, the Insureds cite no binding precedent recognizing a formal fiduciary relationship under similar facts, and our...
  • Karle v. Seder
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • January 26, 1950
    ...does not relieve the purchasing partner of his fiduciary obligation in dealing with the selling partner was held in Johnson v. Peckham, 132 Tex. 148, 120 S.W.2d 786, 120 A.L.R. 720 In the annotation to this case found in 120 A.L.R. at page 728, the author 'The duty or obligation of partners to act with the utmost candor and good faith in their dealings as between themselves was said in Wright v. Duke (1895) 91 Hun, 409, 36 N.Y.S. 853, not to be lessened...
  • Get Started for Free
1 firm's commentaries
  • Administering Trusts in Recessions: Trust Loans to Beneficiaries
    • United States
    • Winstead PC October 30, 2020
    ...Christi 1998, pet. denied). Regardless of the circumstances, the law provides that beneficiaries are entitled to rely on a trustee to fully disclose all relevant information. See generally Johnson v. Peckham, 132 Tex. 148, 120 S.W.2d 786, 788 (1938). In fact, a trustee has a duty to account to the beneficiaries for all trust transactions, including transactions, profits, and mistakes. Huie v. DeShazo, 922 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. 1996); see also Montgomery,...