Pelton v. McClaren Rubber Co., 2036.
| Decision Date | 06 October 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 2036.,2036. |
| Citation | 120 S.W.2d 516 |
| Parties | PELTON v. McCLAREN RUBBER CO. et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; Claude M. McCallum, Judge.
Action by H. E. Pelton against the McClaren Rubber Company and others to recover compensation allegedly due under a contract between plaintiff and the named defendant. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Clark & Stegall, of Fort Worth, for appellant.
Ungerman & Ungerman and David M. Weinstein, all of Dallas, and Bonner, King & Dawson, of Wichita Falls, for appellees.
H. E. Pelton brought this suit against McClaren Rubber Company, J. A. Cato and others to recover certain compensation alleged to be due him under a contract between himself and McClaren Rubber Company, by which the latter employed him to collect an indebtedness owing to McClaren Rubber Company by J. A. Cato. The trial court instructed a verdict for the defendants and the plaintiff appealed.
The material facts are these: J. A. Cato was indebted to McClaren Rubber Company of Charlotte, North Carolina, in a sum of approximately $5,000, evidenced by a promissory note. Ungerman & Ungerman, attorneys, had brought suit on the note for McClaren Rubber Company against Cato in a district court in Dallas county. Pelton, who was not a lawyer, was engaged in operating a regularly licensed collecting agency in the city of Fort Worth. He contacted Ungerman & Ungerman and undertook to induce them to employ him to assist in collecting the indebtedness but was unsuccessful. Shortly thereafter, on July 10, 1935, Pelton wrote McClaren Rubber Company at Charlotte, North Carolina, as follows:
At that time McClaren Rubber Company declined to place the account with Pelton, but after some further correspondence, on September 5, 1935, McClaren Rubber Company's auditor wrote Pelton authorizing him to handle the collection on a basis of thirty per cent for his services, said letter concluding as follows: On September 6th, Ungerman & Ungerman entered into a settlement agreement with Cato. On the same day, Pelton, without having first conferred with Ungerman & Ungerman and without knowledge of the settlement agreement, employed an attorney to intervene in a certain receivership proceeding then pending in Tarrant county for the purpose of collecting said claim and took other steps along the same line. McClaren Rubber Company refused to recognize any liability to Pelton under the contract.
We are of the opinion that the trial court correctly instructed a verdict for the defendants. The evidence shows without dispute that Pelton secured his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Traffic Bureau v. Thompson
...remedied by the Legislature. McCloskey v. San Antonio Public Service Company, Tex.Civ.App., 51 S.W.2d 1088. In Pelton v. McClaren Rubber Co., Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 516, 517, wr. ref., Mr. Justice Alexander (later Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) made the following clear and unequivoca......
-
Turcotte v. Trevino
...by personal solicitation in violation of the barratry statute is void as against public policy. Pelton v. McClaren Rubber Co., 120 S.W.2d 516 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1938, writ ref'd). It is without dispute in the record that both Walker and Putegnat were heirs at law of Mrs. East and were bene......
-
Neese v. Lyon
...offense of barratry as defined in the penal code is a public remedy and not a private one."); cf. Pelton v. McClaren Rubber Co., 120 S.W.2d 516, 517 (Tex.Civ.App.–Waco 1938, writ ref'd) (allowing assertion of barratry as a defense and holding that claim-collector's contract secured by illeg......