Miller v. Gahagan, 15924
| Decision Date | 12 September 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 15924,15924 |
| Citation | 316 S.W.2d 160 |
| Parties | Tom M. MILLER, Appellant, v. C. P. GAHAGAN et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Tom M. Miller, Graham, for appellant.
Jennings & Montgomery and Elton M. Montgomery, Graham, for appellees.
On June 20, 1958, we filed an opinion in this case. After further study of the case on motion for rehearing, we have concluded there were certain errors in that opinion. Hence, the former opinion is withdrawn and the following is substituted therefor.
In 1941 appellees C. P. Gahagan and Mary Gahagan Elkins acquired an undivided one-fourth interest in the minerals in a tract of 246.4 acres of land, the grantor, by his deed of conveyance, reserving unto himself, his heirs and assigns, the absolute power and authority to execute oil, gas and other mineral leases on said land as might seem proper to grantor, and to receipt for and collect any bonus or other down payment on such leases, without the joinder by the grantees, but with the obligation to pay to appellees one-fourth of such bonus or other down payments. On October 30, 1952, appellant Tom M. Miller purchased the interest of appellees' grantor.
Appellees sued appellant and alleged that on June 21, 1954, appellant leased the minerals in said tract to Gene Van Dyke for $10 per acre and collected the money therefor- ; that $616 thereof belonged to appellees; and that appellant had failed and refused to pay appellees that amount or any part thereof. Appellant denied that he had leased appellees' interest in the minerals, and pleaded the two-year statute of limitation, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 5526.
The jury found that appellant leased appellees' interest in the minerals along with his own and that the consideration was $10 per acre, which was paid to appellant in September, 1954, of which amount appellees were due to be paid by appellant the sum of $616; appellant failed to pay that amount or any part thereof; appellees were entitled to exemplary damages in the sum of $400 and attorney's fees in the sum of $250. Judgment was rendered for appellees for those amounts. There was no motion for new trial. However, appellant filed a motion for judgment, which was overruled.
Appellant presents the following points of error: (1) it was error not to render the judgment for appellant on the plea of limitation; (2) it was error to render judgment for exemplary damages; and (3) it was error to render judgment for attorney's fees.
Suit was filed July 21, 1957, which was more than two years and less than four years after it was found appellant received the money for the lease.
We think the court was correct in holding that the two-year statute of limitation does not apply. Article 5527, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St., provides that the four-year statute of limitation applies to suits for debt if founded upon any contract in writing. The contract in writing to pay appellees their portion of the lease money was made by appellees' grantor; but we think appellant assumed that obligation when he accepted the deed from this grantor.
In International Printing Pressman and Assistants' Union of North America v. Smith, 145 Tex. 399, 198 S.W.2d 729, 735, the court quoted 1 Am.Jur., p. 442, as follows: "If the action is not maintainable without pleading and proving the contract, where the gist of the action is the breach of the contract, either by malfeasance or or nonfeasance, it is, in substance, an action on the contract, whatever may be the form of the pleading." For other holdings bearing upon the point, see Orbeck v. Alfei, Tex.Civ.App., 276 S.W. 947; Berryman v. Flake, Tex.Civ.App., 20 S.W.2d 803; McCord v. Bailey, Tex.Civ.App., 200 S.W.2d 885; Vogel v. Zuercher, Tex.Civ.App., 135 S.W. 737; Davis v. Rush, Tex.Civ.App., 288 S.W. 504; Dowlen v. C. W. Georgs Mfg. Co., 59 Tex.Civ.App. 124, 125 S.W. 931; Texas Western Ry. Co. v. Gentry, 69 Tex. 625, 8 S.W. 98; Cavitt v. Amsler, Tex.Civ.App., 242 S.W. 246; Smith v. Nesbitt, Tex.Civ.App., 235 S.W. 1104.
Appellees insist that the points as to exemplary damages and attorney's fees should not be considered because appellant did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wise v. Pena
...appellant should have given the trial court an opportunity to correct the alleged error prior to a review by this Court. See Miller v. Gahagan, 316 S.W.2d 160 (Tex.Civ.App. Fort Worth 1958, no writ); Miller v. Long-Bell Lumber Co., 217 S.W.2d 867 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1949) aff'd 148 Tex. ......
-
Nelms v. Chazanow, 14747
...Tex.Civ.App., 276 S.W. 947; 21 Corpus Juris, p . 1095, § 81; 19 Am.Jur., p. 627, Sec. 29, p. 624, Sec. 26.' See also Miller v. Gahagan, Tex.Civ.App. 1958, 316 S.W.2d 160; International Printing Pressmen & Assistants Union v. Smith, 1946, 145 Tex. 399, 198 S.W.2d 729; State v. Davis, Tex.Civ......
-
Campbell v. Dreier
...ownership follow the mineral fee and pass upon succession, transfer, death, devise and partition of the mineral estate. Miller v. Gahagan, Tex.Civ.App., 316 S.W.2d 160; De Busk v. Cosden Petroleum Corp., Tex.Civ.App., 262 S.W.2d 767; Miller v. Speed, Tex.Civ.App., 248 S.W.2d 250, 259 S.W.2d......
-
Western Minerals, Inc. v. Hill
... ... v. Randio, Tex.Civ.App., 419 S.W.2d 407; Miller v. Gahagan, Tex.Civ.App., 316 S ... W.2d 160; American General Insurance Co. v. Beare, Tex.Civ.App., ... ...
-
CHAPTER 11 LEASE ISSUES TO CONSIDER FOR TITLE EXAMINATION
...Land Bank of Wichita v. Nicholson, 251 P.2d 490 (Okla. 1952); Skelly Oil Co. v. Butner, 205 P.2d 1153 (Okla. 1949); Miller v. Gahagan, 316 S.W.2d 160 (Tex. App. 1958)).[4] 2 Martin & Kramer, supra note 1, at § 338 (quoting Day & Co. v. Texland Petroleum, Inc., 786 S.W.2d 667 (Tex. 1990)).[5......