Matthews v. Foster

• Decision Date: 15 February 1922
• Docket Number: (No. 6691.)
• Citation: 238 S.W. 317
• Parties: MATTHEWS v. FOSTER.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

238 S.W. 317

MATTHEWS v. FOSTER.

(No. 6691.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

February 15, 1922.

Appeal from Hidalgo County Court; George P. Brown, Judge.

Suit by G. M. Foster against W. F. Matthews. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

John C. Myrick, of Harlingen, for appellant.

Flowers & Cameron, of Mercedes, for appellee.

FLY, C. J.

This is a suit for $954.05, brought by appellee against appellant, and, on a trial by jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment for appellee in the sum of $550.

Appellant has filed a transcript and briefs in this court, without the style of the cause being given on the covers or within the record. Not only that, but the briefs are written in blurred and almost illegible type, rendering the consideration of them both difficult and annoying. The Supreme Court has made a rule that briefs of not exceeding 15 pages may be typewritten, but there is no rule permitting the filing of briefs written in type so indistinct as to almost defy an ascertainment of the contents. The rules, old or new, are given scant attention in the preparation of the briefs, but no objection is urged to them by appellee.

This is a very peculiar case, founded, as it is, on a verbal contract made in Oklahoma, between two inhabitants of that state, in regard to the rent of a tract of land lying in Cameron county, Tex., and yet upon an account based on the breach of a contract entered into in Oklahoma, but breached in Cameron county; the Oklahoma man is sued in Hidalgo county, where it seems that the appellee now resides. In his wanderings in Texas, he seems to have carried the suit with him, and appellant quite complacently made no objection to his conveying it around with his other chattels. Not only is the case unique in the respects named; but it is singular that appellee does not claim in his petition that any crops ever came up on the land, or that by his cultivation they were given any start towards maturity, or that they had any value, or probably ever would have had any, no matter how much money may have been furnished. These were trivial matters, however, for judge and jury without a single thought gave a good round sum against the absent Oklahoman.

The gist of the brief of appellant is that the court erred in failing and refusing to sustain a general demurrer and special exceptions to the petition. It was alleged in the petition that appellant and appellee, on or about October 9, 1920, entered into a certain verbal contract whereby appellant rented to appellee a certain tract of land in Cameron county, Tex., near Harlingen; appellant agreeing to furnish appellee with a sufficient amount of money to make a crop on said land, and buy groceries, tools, and implements, and pay irrigation charges and taxes, and appellee agreeing to furnish all labor "and to cultivate the said land in a husband like manner, and to give appellant one-third of all the crops produced on said land, and to repay to appellant all advances made to appellee." Appellee alleged that he and appellant lived in Oklahoma, and that the verbal contract was made in that state, and that in pursuance of the contract appellee removed with his family to the land of appe...