Majors v. Goodrich

• Decision Date: 17 January 1900
• Citation: 54 S.W. 919
• Parties: MAJORS v. GOODRICH et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

54 S.W. 919

MAJORS v. GOODRICH et al.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

January 17, 1900.

Appeal from Falls county court; W. E. Hunnicutt, Judge.

Action by Goodrich & Miller against Joe Majors. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Appellant, Joe Majors, has filed a brief in this case. No brief for appellees has reached us. Appellant states the nature and result of the suit as follows: "This was an action originally instituted on the 19th day of October, 1898, in the justice's court of precinct No. 5, Falls county, Texas, by appellees, Goodrich & Miller, against appellant, Joe Majors, for rent, in the sum of $70.75. Distress warrant issued on the same day, and officer levied upon and took into his possession 2 bales of cotton, about 100 bushels of corn, and about 2,000 pounds of cotton seed, and all of the cotton in the field not picked. On the trial in the justice's court appellees pleaded that defendant, Joe Majors, owed the sum of $82.60 for balance on rent due for the year 1898, including both corn and cotton, and pleaded a landlord's lien, and asked for a foreclosure of their lien. Defendant pleaded a general demurrer and general denial, and specially pleaded that the contract for rent was that the defendant should pay for the old land at the rate of $3.50 per acre, and that there was 10¼ acres of the old land; that he (defendant) had paid the sum of $82.84, the sum of $52.04 more than was due Goodrich & Miller; and that the new land was to be rent free, for the consideration of putting in cultivation of said land. Pleads actual damage in the sum of $15, and exemplary damage in the sum of $50, for the illegally and unjustly suing out the distress warrant. Plaintiffs further pleaded a denial of the facts pleaded by defendant, and specially pleaded that the contract between plaintiff and defendants was one-fourth of the cotton, and $4 per acre for 17 acres of corn land, and specially denies that plaintiffs ever at any time let defendant have any new land or old land free of rent. Defendant was permitted to amend so as to show no rental contract. The trial resulted in justice's court in a judgment for defendant (appellant here) that he recover the sum of $77.34. The cause was appealed to the county court, and on April 26, 1899, was tried, and resulted in a verdict that appellees recover of defendant the sum of $68, and a foreclosure of landlord's lien upon the property levied upon, to which ruling of the court defendant excepted, and gave notice of appeal."

Wiley C. Jones, for appellant.

COLLARD, J. (after stating the facts).

1. The first assignment of error insisted on by appellant is: "The court erred in the second paragraph of its charge, in which it charged the jury in effect that if they believed from the evidence that plaintiffs rented the cotton land to defendant for one-fourth of the cotton, and the corn land for $4 per acre, they would find for plaintiffs, because there was no evidence in the record that plaintiffs had a contract with defendant binding him to pay one-fourth of the cotton for the said cotton land, and $4 per acre for the corn land; plaintiffs' right to recover, if any, being grounded solely upon an implied contract which would only entitle them to demand the reasonable rental value for the land cultivated and occupied by defendant." The farm land of plaintiffs amounted to about 1,000 acres, and it was rented for the year 1898 by N. W. Goodrich, son of G. W. Goodrich, one of the plaintiffs. He sent word to the place by Mark Taylor to all the tenants in January, 1898, to meet him at headquarters, near Gurley, on a certain day, and he would make rental contracts with them. Many of the tenants met him at the appointed time and place. He did not look specially to see if all were present, but knew that notice had been sent to all of them, and he thought all that desired to rent land were there. He stated to them that he would rent the uplands for corn at $4 per acre, and cotton lands for one-fourth of all the cotton raised by them, while the bottom lands he would charge them $4.50 per acre for the corn land, and one-fourth of all cotton they raised on cotton land. This was satisfactory. He did not notice to see if defendant was there or not. In fact, defendant was not there. He cultivated some of the land under a contract with one Taylor, who he said was acting as agent for plaintiffs,—10¼ acres of old land, with the privilege of putting in some rough land free of rent. Taylor testified that he made no contract with defendant of any...