McAnally v. Smith, Civ. A. No. CA-6-348.

Decision Date21 August 1974
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. CA-6-348.
Citation379 F. Supp. 1129
PartiesRobert L. McANALLY, Plaintiff, v. W. W. SMITH, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Duffy A. SASSER, Third-Party Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

George S. Finley, Smith, Davis, Rose, Finley & Hofmann, San Angelo, Tex., for plaintiff.

Douglass D. Hearne, Stayton, Maloney, Hearne, Babb & Cowden, Austin, Tex., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM

WOODWARD, District Judge.

The above case was tried before a jury in Lubbock, Texas, with consent of all parties, on July 9, 1974 with the plaintiff and defendant being personally present and each represented by counsel.

Plaintiff, by his complaint, seeks to enforce a judgment which plaintiff alleges is owned by him by virtue of an assignment of said judgment from the Standard Leasing Company. A judgment was originally obtained on January 24, 1972 against the defendant, W. W. Smith, and third-party defendant herein, Duffy A. Sasser. Plaintiff, Robert L. McAnally, is seeking to enforce the judgment only against Mr. Smith in this suit. There is a diversity of citizenship with the jurisdictional amount sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

The chronology of the events in this case are as follows:

1. On May 12, 1969, Duffy Sasser and W. W. Smith owed Standard Leasing $30,846.42.

2. On July 17, 1970, Smith and Sasser entered into a contract whereby Sasser agreed to hold Smith harmless for a number of debts, the Standard Leasing debt being one of those named.

3. On October 28, 1971, Sasser and McAnally entered into a contract whereby McAnally agreed to relieve Sasser of all obligations (including the Standard Leasing debt) in exchange for certain stock owned by Sasser which was to be placed into an escrow account with a Clovis, New Mexico bank and delivered to McAnally when all the listed obligations against Sasser were satisfied.

4. On January 24, 1972, Standard Leasing obtained a default judgment against Sasser and Smith.

5. On November 28, 1973, Standard Leasing assigned its interest in the judgment to McAnally.

6. On December 28, 1973, McAnally sued Smith in this cause on the judgment.

The jury, in response to the one special issue submitted, found that the plaintiff, Robert L. McAnally, was acting on behalf of or for the benefit of Duffy Sasser at the time he obtained the Standard Leasing Company judgment. Based on this verdict of the jury the defendant has moved for a judgment that the plaintiff take nothing and the plaintiff opposes such motion. The basis of the defendant's motion is twofold: 1) that the finding of the jury that Mr. Sasser acquired the judgment or that it was acquired for his benefit entitles Mr. McAnally to enforce his hold harmless agreement against Mr. Sasser concerning the debt in question, and 2) that under the applicable law, when a co-judgment debtor (such as Sasser) acquires a judgment it is automatically extinguished against all of the judgment debtors.

The plaintiff contends that there is no evidence to support the jury's finding and has also moved for the entry of judgment in his favor.

The first inquiry by this court is whether or not the issue as answered by the jury is sufficient as a matter of law to be a defense to this suit. In the opinion of this court such a fact finding will bar the plaintiff's recovery. It appears to be the law of this state that "the assignment of a judgment to or for the benefit of the judgment debtor satisfies the judgment, for the reason that two antagonistic rights of creditors are merged into one and the same person." Rich v. Smith, 481 S.W.2d 162, 163 (Tex.Civ.App. — Fort Worth, writ ref'd n. r. e.), citing to ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • In re Sewell
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • 2 Septiembre 2009
    ...163 (Tex.Civ. App. — Fort Worth 1972, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (quoting 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments § 891 (1969)); see also McAnally v. Smith, 379 F.Supp. 1129, 1130 (N.D.Tex.1974). Further, under Texas law, a judgment is extinguished where payment is made by, and the judgment is assigned to, one who ......
  • Hageman/Fritz, Byrne, Head v. Luth
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 24 Junio 2004
    ...162, 163 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1972, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (quoting 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments § 891 (1969)); see also McAnally v. Smith, 379 F.Supp. 1129, 1130 (N.D.Tex.1974). This rule is supported by considerable logic. See, e.g., Rich, 481 S.W.2d at 163 (quoting Hoft v. Mohn, 215 N.C. 397, ......
  • BW Village, Ltd. v. Tricon Enterprises, Inc., B14-93-00191-CV
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 12 Mayo 1994
    ...163 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1972, writ ref'd n.r.e.), quoting 46 AM.JUR.2D Judgments § 891 (1969). Tricon relies on McAnally v. Smith, 379 F.Supp. 1129 (N.D.Tex.1974). Sasser, a co-judgment debtor, had contracted to hold Smith, another co-judgment debtor, harmless for the debt underlying ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT