McCamey v. Hollister Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 18 March 1922 |
| Docket Number | (No. 9732.) |
| Citation | 241 S.W. 689 |
| Parties | McCAMEY v. HOLLISTER OIL CO. et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Tarrant County; R. E. L. Roy, Judge.
Action by George B. McCamey against the Hollister Oil Company, Warren H. Hollister, William Hettesheimer, and Charles J. Geiser. Judgment for plaintiff against the defendant company and the individual defendants as trustees, but denying personal judgment against the individual defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and rendered in part, and undisturbed in part.
Thompson, Barwise, Wharton & Hiner and J. Arthur Collins, all of Fort Worth, for appellant.
Walker & Baker, of Cleburne, and Garee, Odell & Allen and Ernest May, all of Fort Worth, for appellees.
George B. McCamey drilled an oil well for the Hollister Oil Company, under a contract in writing which consisted of a written proposition, dated at Fort Worth, Tex., signed by McCamey and addressed to the "Hollister Oil Company," at Fort Worth, Tex., and accepted by that company. The offer made by McCamey included his proposition to drill and certain material mentioned necessary thereto, also stating $38,500 as the price which would be charged for the work and material, and the dates for the payment of the same. Below the signature of McCamey to that proposition was the following:
"We accept the above proposition
"[Signed] Hollister Oil Co
"W. H. Hollister
"R. A. Barry, Mgr
"Correction certified to
"[Signed] Geo. B. McCamey
"Hollister Oil Co.,
"By W. H. Hollister."
McCamey instituted this suit to recover the balance due him under that contract, and the recovery was sought, not only against the Hollister Oil Company, but also against Warren H. Hollister, William Hettesheimer, and Charles J. Geiser, who were likewise made parties defendants in the suit. It was alleged that the Hollister Oil Company is a joint-stock association with its principal place of business in Fort Worth, Tarrant county, Tex.; that the defendant Warren H. Hollister, who resides in Tarrant county, is its president; that William Hettesheimer likewise resides in Tarrant county, Tex., and that Charles J. Geiser is a resident citizen of New York state, but is temporarily residing in Tarrant county, Tex.; and plaintiff prayed for service of citation on all of the defendants to answer his petition. The petition contained this allegation:
"Plaintiff further alleges that the defendant Warren H. Hollister, William Hettesheimer, and Charles J. Geiser were, at the time said contract was entered into, and are now, owners of shares of stock in the said Hollister Oil Company, a joint-stock association, and that the said Warren H. Hollister, William Hettesheimer, and Charles J. Geiser are liable to plaintiff as joint principals or as with the Hollister Oil Company, partners for any breach of the contract as hereinafter set out, so entered into between plaintiff and the Hollister Oil Company."
Then follow allegations of performance of the work in compliance with the terms of the contract and allegations of liability on the part of each and all of the defendants for the balance claimed to be due thereon, with a prayer for judgment against the defendants jointly and severally for such balance; also, for judgment decreeing a mechanic's and materialman's lien in plaintiff's favor on the lease upon which the well was drilled and improvements thereon, together with a foreclosure of such lien.
The defendants jointly filed an answer, consisting of a general demurrer, special exception by Hollister, Hettesheimer, and Geiser, and a general denial by all of them. The answer also contained the following special plea:
"Further answering, if required defendants show that, if plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever, it is against the defendant Hollister Oil Company, and its trustees and the assets of said company in their hands, and not against the other defendants personally; that at all times mentioned by plaintiff said Hollister Oil Company was a common-law trust, and the other defendants contracted with plaintiff in their capacity as trustees only and not as individuals or personally; that, under the declaration of trust of said Hollister Oil Company, plaintiff is required to look alone to the property and funds of said company, and not to the trustees or certificate holders for his debt, if any; and the defendants Hollister, Hettesheimer, and Geiser, specially denying plaintiff's allegations of partnership, therefore show that in no event is plaintiff entitled to recover against them."
The case was tried before the court without a jury, and judgment was rendered in plaintiff's favor against the "Hollister Oil Company, a trust estate," for the sum of $23,385.50, together with the foreclosure of the lien prayed for in plaintiff's petition on defendants' leasehold interest in the land upon which the well was drilled, together with the machinery, supplies, and all personal property and improvements placed on the lease by the defendants. But the plaintiff was denied a recovery of personal judgment against the defendants Hollister, Hettesheimer, and Geiser for the debt for which he sued. From the judgment so rendered in favor of the individual defendants last mentioned, the plaintiff has prosecuted this appeal.
The trial was upon an agreed statement of facts, signed by counsel for all the parties, which is as follows:
The declaration of trust attached to the agreement is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Hovermale, 04-82-00017-CV
...by the relator. The law is well-settled that legal title to the trust res is vested in the trustee. McCamey v. Hollister Oil Co., 241 S.W. 689, 695 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1922), aff'd on other grounds, 115 Tex. 49, 274 S.W. 562 (1925); Long v. Long, 252 S.W.2d 235, 247 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texar......
-
State ex rel. Knox, Atty. Gen. v. Edward Hines Lumber Co.
...firm, which include power to sell the trust properties). And see Banner Oil & Gas Co. v. Gordon, 235 S.W. 845. But compare McCamey v. Hollister Oil Co., 241 S.W. 689. In Harvey Co. v. Graden, 260 S.W. 655, the declared that a particular statute in reference to "any unincorporated joint stoc......
-
Darling v. Buddy
...not be both trustees and cestui que trust of the property at the same time. Willey v. Hoggson Corporation, 106 So. 412; McCamey v. Hollister Oil Co., 241 S.W. 695. (c) syndicate managers were not merely to invest and collect dividends or interest or rental, and distribute the same among the......
-
Burk-Waggoner Oil Ass'n v. Hopkins
... ... 868; Roberts v. Anderson, 226 F. 7, 141 C.C.A. 121; ... Industrial Lumber Co. v. Texas Pine Land Assn ... (Tex.Civ.App.) 72 S.W. 875; McCamey v. Hollister Oil ... Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 241 S.W. 689; West Side Oil Co ... v. McDorman (Tex.Civ.App.) 244 S.W. 167; Slaughter ... v. American ... ...