Jones v. Smith

• Decision Date: 03 June 1899
• Citation: 52 S.W. 561
• Parties: JONES v. SMITH.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

52 S.W. 561

JONES v. SMITH.¹

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

June 3, 1899.

Appeal from district court, Cooke county; D. E. Barrett, Judge.

Action by C. R. Smith against H. A. Jones. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Geo. H. Culp and Davis & Garnett, for appellant. J. W. Bailey, Stuart & Bell, and C. R. Pearman, for appellee.

STEPHENS, J.

Quoting from appellant's brief: "This was an action by appellee, Smith, against the appellant, Jones, seeking judgment upon four notes, aggregating about $1,000, and to foreclose a pledge of $1,000 of the capital stock of the Commercial Publishing Company of Memphis, Tenn. The trial on November 19, 1898, resulted in a judgment in favor of the appellee for $1,085.64, and foreclosing the pledge as to three of the notes." These notes were all given for money borrowed of Smith by Jones to enable the latter to purchase certain interests in a mining lease on Beacon Hill, Cripple Creek, Colo., known as the Lindsay or Gladden lease, No. 3, and to pay his portion of the expenses incurred in developing the mine. Jones' purchases were made through and from W. T. Roberts, Smith also becoming a purchaser. These purchases began in the early part of May, 1897, and the lease had until October following to run. The development of the mine was at once undertaken by Smith, Jones, and others, under the firm name of C. R. Smith & Co.; Smith being first in charge, and then Jones. The mine proving worthless, the undertaking was finally abandoned, after considerable money had been expended both by Smith and Jones in the effort to develop it. Recovery on these notes was resisted by Jones substantially upon the ground that Smith and Roberts had confederated to deceive and mislead him, their alleged purpose being to exploit a worthless mine, and that he was not only thus induced to borrow the money and purchase interests in the lease, believing the mine to be valuable, but also to contribute to the expense of exploiting it, under the belief that an honest effort was being made to develop it. The further charge was made against Smith of a fraudulent misapplication to the development of lease No. 2, in which he had some sort of interest, but in which Jones had none, of the money furnished to develop lease No. 3. Negligence was also charged against him in the manner of disbursing the money. These defenses were met with a general and specific denial of the charges made, and the contention arose that appellant acted with full knowledge of the facts, and upon his own judgment in the premises; he having first gone upon the ground, and investigated the mine for himself. The issues so made were submitted to the jury, in a charge which we approve, as being both correct and applicable to the facts of this case. Whether or not Smith, alone or in connection with Roberts, dealt fraudulently with Jones, and whether or not Jones was deceived by Smith and Roberts, or was self-deceived, were the controlling issues submitted by the charge, together...