Magill v. Rugeley
| Decision Date | 20 November 1914 |
| Docket Number | (No. 6716.) |
| Citation | 171 S.W. 528 |
| Parties | MAGILL v. RUGELEY, Sheriff, et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Matagorda County; Sam'l J. Styles, Judge.
Suit by G. M. Magill against Frank Rugeley, sheriff, and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Gaines & Corbett, of Bay City, for appellant. Krause & Wilson, of Bay City, for appellees.
This suit was brought by appellant to enjoin the execution of a judgment rendered by the district court of Matagorda county against appellant and others and in favor of S. G. Anderson, defendant in this suit. The judgment sought to be enjoined was rendered on January 22, 1912, in a suit brought by S. G. Anderson against the Burton D. Hurd Land Company, as principal, and appellant G. M. Magill and others, as sureties, and was for the sum of $1,744.28. This judgment directs that execution issue upon the property of the sureties, only in event property of the principal sufficient to satisfy the judgment could not be found. In that suit E. E. Bateman was attorney of record for S. G. Anderson. Original execution was issued on this judgment October 25, 1912, and an alias execution on March 17, 1913, which was returned not executed, "no property of the Burton D. Hurd Land Company being found." Several subsequent executions were issued and returned not executed, "no property being found."
The execution sought to be enjoined in this suit was issued on October 3, 1913, and was by defendant Rugeley, sheriff of Matagorda county, levied upon lots in the city of Bay City owned by appellant Magill. Plaintiff asked that the execution of the judgment be enjoined, and said judgment canceled and discharged of record on the ground that E. E. Bateman, the attorney of record for defendant Anderson in the suit in which said judgment was rendered, had on February 25, 1913, made a settlement of said judgment with the land company, and executed a written release of the judgment, reciting that it had been paid and satisfied in full. The defendant Anderson by proper plea denied the authority of Bateman to make said settlement and execute said release. By supplemental petition, the plaintiff alleged that Bateman was the attorney of record of the defendant Anderson, and had full and complete authority to make the settlement with the land company and release said judgment, and further that Bateman was also a joint owner with Anderson of said judgment.
The trial in the court below without a jury resulted in a judgment in favor of the defendants.
The evidence shows that E. E. Bateman, who was attorney of record for defendant in the suit in which the judgment sought to be enjoined was obtained, on February 25, 1913, accepted from the land company, in satisfaction of said judgment, trustees' certificates of the nominal value of the amount due upon the judgment, and executed and delivered to the land company a full release of the judgment, signed by him as attorney of record for the defendant Anderson. Anderson testified that he never authorized Bateman to accept anything but money in satisfaction of the judgment, and that the trustees' certificates were never delivered to him, and he had never seen them. When he heard that Bateman had made a settlement of the judgment he went to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bourland v. Huffhines
...to give notice of any limitation of his general agent, or any agent who has apparent authority, does not apply. Magill v. Rugeley (Tex. Civ. App.) 171 S. W. 528; Wright v. Daily, 26 Tex. 730; Gordon v. Sanborn (Tex. Civ. App.) 35 S. W. 291. One dealing with a special agent does so at his pe......
-
Ives v. Culton
...first case cited above, decided by this court, and the agreements in these two cases differ somewhat from that in the case of Magill v. Rugeley, 171 S. W. 528, on which appellee relies to support his contention that he had no interest in the fund itself. Whether there is any distinction to ......
-
Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Vidrine, 17763
...his client is not required to give notice of any limitation of authority. 7 Tex.Jur.2d, Point 1 Attorneys at Law § 71, citing Magill v. Rugeley, 171 S.W. 528 (Tex.Civ.App.-Galveston 1914, err. ref'd); Commercial Credit Co. v. Crone, 270 S.W. 209, (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1925, no We are left ......
-
Commercial Credit Co. v. Crone
...(Scott v. Atchison, 38 Tex. 385); nor is his client required to give notice of the limitations upon his authority (Magill v. Rugeley [Tex. Civ. App.] 171 S. W. 528). In a suit to enforce an agreement alleged to have been made by an attorney for his client, it is necessary to allege and prov......