Long v. Riley
| Decision Date | 01 July 1911 |
| Citation | 139 S.W. 79 |
| Parties | LONG v. RILEY. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Collin County; J. M. Pearson, Judge.
Action by J. H. Riley against R. A. Long. From the judgment, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Smith & Wilcox and Abernathy & Abernathy, for appellant. R. C. Merritt, L. J. Truett, and Garnett & Hughston, for appellee.
J. H. Riley, plaintiff, sued R. A. Long, defendant, in the district court of Collin county on four promissory notes, one note being for $750, and each of the other notes being for $321.40, alleging that said notes were given as part of the purchase money for certain tracts of land conveyed by plaintiff to defendant and described in plaintiff's petition. Copies of the notes were attached to the petition, and each note provided that failure to pay same or any installment of interest thereon when due should at the election of the holder mature all said notes, and plaintiff alleged that defendant had made default in the payment of said note for $750, and that he (plaintiff) elected to mature all said notes. Plaintiff also sued out a writ of sequestration, and possession of the premises was delivered to him by the sheriff of Collin county by virtue of said writ. Plaintiff prayed for judgment for the amount due on the notes, including attorney's fees, and for foreclosure of his vendor's lien. Defendant answered by general denial, and further alleged that at the time of the execution of the notes it was agreed and understood between plaintiff and defendant that the latter was to pay said $750 note out of the proceeds of an insurance policy to be collected thereafter, and that if said policy was not collected when said note became due plaintiff was to carry the note until the policy was collected, and that by fraud, accident, and mistake such stipulation was not incorporated in the writing. Defendant also alleged payment of certain sums and that he had made valuable improvements, that the affidavit of sequestration was untrue, and that the suing out of the writ was malicious, and prayed that the contract with plaintiff be rescinded and for actual and exemplary damages. Plaintiff excepted to the parts of said answer which set up the parol agreement in regard to the $750, and to the allegations as to fraud, accident, and mistake, and to the allegations as to permanent and valuable improvements, which objections were by the court sustained. The cause was tried before a jury, and verdict rendered for plaintiff for the amount due on the notes and awarding defendant $275 on his cross-bill. Plaintiff filed a remittitur of $125, and judgment was rendered accordingly. Defendant filed a motion for new trial, which was overruled, and perfected his appeal to this court.
In the first assignment it is contended that the court erred in sustaining plaintiff's exceptions to defendant's pleadings to the effect that he built a house and placed other improvements on the land; that he placed the land in a good state of cultivation; that he put parts of the land in cultivation; that he made permanent and valuable improvements, dug ditches, hauled rock, and did work to improve the land. The court properly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waters v. Byers Bros. & Co.
...Furniture Co., 186 S. W. 277; Crooker v. National Phonograph Co., 135 S. W. 647; Dolson v. De Ganahl, 70 Tex. 620, 8 S. W. 321; Long v. Riley, 139 S. W. 79; Nixon v. First State Bank, 60 Tex. Civ. App. 7, 127 S. W. 882; Daniel on Neg. Inst. §§ 80, 81a; note 43 L. R. A. 449 et seq. No contem......
-
Chalk v. Daggett
...Life Ins. Co. v. Allen (Tex. Civ. App.) 170 S. W. 131; Hendrick v. Chase Furniture Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 186 S. W. 277; Long v. Riley (Tex. Civ. App.) 139 S. W. 79; Ablowich v. Greenville Nat. Bank, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 272, 54 S. W. 794. Not even may time of payment arising by legal implicatio......
-
Chalk v. Daggett
...Co. v. Roberts, 26 S. W. 246; Bailey v. Rockwall County Nat. Bank, 61 S. W. 530; Matheson v. C-B Live Stock Co., 176 S. W. 734; Long v. Riley, 139 S. W. 79. Possibly, however, the paragraphs of the answer referred to are more properly to be construed as a plea of failure of consideration or......
-
Dibrell v. Central Nat. Bank
...W. 295; Crooker v. National Phonograph Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 135 S. W. 647; Dolson v. DeGanahl, 70 Tex. 620, 8 S. W. 321; Long v. Riley (Tex. Civ. App.) 139 S. W. 79; Self v. King, 28 Tex. Appellant contends that the parol evidence exception should not have been sustained, because he alleged......