Pridgen v. Furnish, (No. 1107-5359.)
| Decision Date | 29 January 1930 |
| Docket Number | (No. 1107-5359.) |
| Citation | 23 S.W.2d 307 |
| Parties | PRIDGEN et al. v. FURNISH et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by D. K. Furnish against Mary A. Pridgen, Oscar F. Pridgen, E. P. Butler, Mrs. E. P. Butler, and another. A judgment on an instructed verdict against the defendants named was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals , and they bring error. Judgments affirmed.
Heilbron & Kilday and Nat L. Hardy, all of San Antonio, for plaintiffs in error.
Church, Lawley & Graves, Cunningham, Moursund & Johnson, and Lewright & Lewright, all of San Antonio, for defendants in error.
This is an action brought by D. K. Furnish against Mary A. Pridgen, Oscar F. Pridgen, Adolph Wagner, E. P. Butler, and Mrs. E. P. Butler, seeking to recover personally against Mary A. Pridgen and Oscar F. Pridgen upon a certain vendor's lien note for $36,294.51, a part of the purchase money of lot No. 6, block 139 in the city of San Antonio, known as the Butler Hotel property. The note was originally executed to Adolph Wagner and by him assigned to plaintiff. The other defendants were made parties because of the foreclosure sought. The defense finally interposed was that the deed was in truth a mortgage or trust and not a conveyance, as it purported to be.
There was an instructed verdict against the defendants the Pridgens and the Butlers on their plea for equitable relief, and the Pridgens and Butlers appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals first reversed in part, but upon a rehearing set aside, that judgment and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. 11 S.W.(2d) 844.
The case is before us upon a single assignment which is, in substance, that the court erred in peremptorily instructing a verdict in favor of the defendant Wagner and against the defendants (the Pridgens and the Butlers) because the uncontradicted testimony shows that the Pridgens placed the title to their property in the name of Wagner for the purpose of securing said Wagner in certain transactions, and that after certain adjustments had been made Wagner was to reconvey the property to the Pridgens.
Waiving any consideration of the sufficiency of this assignment to challenge the judgment in favor of defendant in error Furnish, and treating it as presenting fully such complaint, the assignment must be overruled.
The attack here is clearly an effort to impeach, contradict, and vary the plain unambiguous terms of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lindsay v. Clayman
...254 S.W.2d 777 ... 151 Tex. 593 ... CLAYMAN, et al ... No. A-3652 ... Supreme Court of Texas ... Nov. 5, 1952 ... Rehearing ... 257; Johnson v. Johnson, Tex.Com.App., 14 S.W.2d 805; Pridgen v. Furnish, Tex.Com.App., ... 23 S.W.2d 307; Guggenheim v. Dallas ... ...
-
Bradshaw v. McDonald
...be accepted as authoritative. Bradshaw also claims that the holding of the Court of Civil Appeals is in conflict with Pridgen v. Furnish, Tex.Com. App., 23 S.W.2d 307. That case involved an alleged parol trust rather than a mortgage (although the Court of Civil Appeals loosely spoke of it a......
-
Austin v. Austin, 8200.
...insists that our holding in our original opinion as to the admissibility of parol evidence is in conflict with that in Pridgen v. Furnish, Tex.Com.App., 23 S.W.2d 307, where it was held that stipulations in a vendor's lien note were contractual in nature and could not be varied or contradic......
-
Kidd v. Young
...Line & R. R. R. Co. v. Garrett, 52 Tex. 133; Matheson v. C-B Live Stock Co. et al., Tex.Civ.App., 176 S. W. 734; Pridgen et al. v. Furnish et al., Tex.Com.App., 23 S.W.2d 307; Johnson v. Johnson, Tex.Com.App., 14 S.W.2d 805. The rule stated applies to any attempt to impose on the grantee in......