Moore v. City of Beaumont
Decision Date | 18 April 1946 |
Docket Number | No. 4325.,4325. |
Citation | 195 S.W.2d 968 |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Parties | MOORE v. CITY OF BEAUMONT. |
Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; W. S. Nichols, Judge.
Action by R. A. Moore against the City of Beaumont to recover money which plaintiff had paid to defendant for conveyance to plaintiff of a mineral royalty under the city's airport and for cancellation of instruments of conveyance. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
George M. Sonfield, of Beaumont, for appellant.
W. A. Tatum, City Atty., and J. B. Morris, both of Beaumont, for appellee.
R. A. Moore brought this action against the City of Beaumont to recover $13,772 which he had paid to the City for a conveyance by the City to him of a mineral royalty in and under the City's airport. He also prayed for cancellation of various instruments of conveyance. The trial court sustained exceptions to his petition and dismissed the action, and from this judgment he has appealed.
It is necessary to summarize Moore's allegations and we do so, as follows: The City of Beaumont is a municipal corporation, operating under a charter adopted pursuant to the Home Rule Amendment to the Constitution of this state. Vernon's Ann.St.Const. art. 11, § 5. On July 26, 1929, Evelyn R. Poole, et al. conveyed to the City by general warranty deed a tract of land in the A. Savery league in Jefferson County, containing 275.44 acres. This instrument purported to convey fee title and contained nothing indicating the use for which the land was intended. Actually, the land was bought and paid for with proceeds of bonds which had been voted and issued by the City for the purpose of acquiring an airport. Production of oil and gas from lands near this tract, and drilling operations conducted on adjacent lands during 1935 indicated that valuable deposits of minerals lay within this tract, and Moore agreed to purchase a 1/16th mineral royalty in and under the land and to pay therefor the sum of $13,772 upon delivery of a general warranty deed from the City conveying said royalty to him. On October 17, 1935, the City tendered Moore a conveyance of this royalty, but he required that authority therefor be procured from the city council, and on November 12, 1935, the council by resolution formally authorized this conveyance. On the day following, to-wit, November 13, 1935, Moore paid the agreed consideration of $13,772 to the City, and the City delivered said deed to Moore. The City's later deed, of January 14, 1935, hereinafter quoted, duplicates this instrument, with immaterial additions.
Moore alleges that the City appropriated this money and used it "for municipal purposes."
After this transaction was completed, Moore entered into negotiations with one Gordon for the sale by him to Gordon of a part of his royalty, but Gordon raised the question, whether the conveyance to Moore should have been authorized by an ordinance instead of by the aforesaid resolution, and Moore thereupon informed the City of his intention to sell a part of the royalty to Gordon, and of this particular defect suggested by Gordon. The City agreed to obviate this objection by passing an appropriate ordinance and by thereafter executing and delivering another deed to Moore, and this agreement was performed. On January 7, 1936, the City enacted an ordinance which ratified the previous deed to Moore, acknowledged receipt of Moore's $13,772, and authorized the mayor, city manager and city clerk to execute and deliver to Moore another general warranty deed conveying the agreed royalty to him, and pursuant to this ordinance the aforesaid officers did make, execute and deliver to Moore the general warranty deed dated January 14, 1936, which is quoted below. Since this instrument is a duplication of the deed to Moore of October 17, 1935, with certain immaterial additions, it may properly be set out as the complete expression of Moore's agreement with the City. It follows:
Gordon thereafter agreed to buy a part of this royalty, subject to approval of Moore's title, but eventually refused to accept a conveyance from Moore "for the reason that, in his opinion, the defendant City of Beaumont had no authority to convey the minerals under said tract of land to plaintiff and that its deed passed no title whatever because said property had been purchased with the proceeds of a bond issue voted for airport purposes." Moore did not acquiesce in Gordon's action; and on or about September 6, 1936, brought suit against Gordon in the district court of Orange County for specific performance of the latter's contract of purchase. Gordon defended the suit on the ground whereon he based his refusal to accept conveyance of title from Moore, and this defense was sustained and Moore was denied relief against Gordon by a judgment of said district court dated February 26, 1937. The Court of Civil Appeals, that is, this court, 122 S.W.2d 239, on an appeal by Moore affirmed the judgment of the trial court by a judgment dated October 27, 1938, and on January 25, 1939, the Supreme Court dismissed Moore's application for a writ of error. Moore's motion for rehearing in the Supreme Court was overruled on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Abboud v. Lakeview, Inc.
...opinion, which was affirmed by the Texas Supreme Court in its entirety. See, City of Beaumont v. Moore, supra; Moore v. City of Beaumont, 195 S.W.2d 968 (Tex.Civ.App.1946). The court held that the title the city passed to Moore and Moore to Gordon was not totally void, but was not the title......
-
Stokes v. Tutvet, 9594
... ... 179, 189 S.W.2d 699; Palmer v. Crews, 203 Miss. 806, 35 So.2d 430, 4 A.L.R.2d 483; Moore v. City of Beaumont, Tex.Civ.App.1946, 195 S.W.2d 968, affirmed 146 Tex. 46, 202 S.W.2d 448; Pease ... ...
-
City of Beaumont v. Moore
...From a judgment of dismissal, the plaintiff appeals to the Court of Civil Appeals. To review a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, 195 S.W.2d 968, reversing the trial court's judgment and remanding the cause to the trial court, the defendant brings Judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals......
-
Zachry v. City of San Antonio, A-6160
... ... Art. 1, par. 3, Par. 7, city charter, supra; Moore v. City of Beaumont, Tex.Civ.App., 195 S.W.2d 968, affirmed City of Beaumont v. Moore, 146 Tex. 46, 202 S.W.2d 448 ... The ... ...