Rublee v. Stevenson, 13187.
| Decision Date | 27 March 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 13187.,13187. |
| Citation | 161 S.W.2d 528 |
| Parties | RUBLEE v. STEVENSON et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Kaufman County; G. O. Crisp, Judge.
Suit on a note by E. P. Harwell against W. A. Rublee, Claude Stevenson, and others, wherein W. A. Rublee filed a cross-action against Claude Stevenson and another, and wherein James A. Ballard, Jr., was substituted as plaintiff after assignment of the cause of action by E. P. Harwell. Before trial, Claude Stevenson and another settled the suit and secured a release, and, from a judgment holding that W. A. Rublee take nothing on his cross-action, W. A. Rublee appeals.
Affirmed.
Henry G. Wills and Robert M. Vaughan, both of Dallas, for appellant.
Carlisle & Henry, of Kaufman, for appellees.
On December 7, 1925, J. B. Cave and Claude Stevenson conveyed to W. A. Rublee certain lands situated in Kaufman County, Texas, in consideration, among others, of a note for $3,431.80, payable to Trinity Farm Construction Company, expressly retaining a lien on the land to secure its payment, which was additionally secured by trust deed on the land; also, a second lien note was executed by Rublee for $5,958, payable to Cave and Stevenson, additionally secured by a deed of trust on the land. On July 6, 1926, Rublee reconveyed these lands to Cave and Stevenson (including in the conveyance some personal property), specifically mentioning the outstanding lien notes above mentioned, and providing that they (C. and S.) "take the land subject to the debt above mentioned"; also containing the following guaranty, that is, "They (C. & S.) specifically agree to hold the said Rublee harmless from any payment of any kind on the land notes above mentioned, and they agree if Rublee is ever called upon to pay either interest or principal, they themselves will pay all of said payments."
On December 30, 1939, E. P. Harwell, as owner and holder of the note for $3,431.80, filed suit thereon in the court below, against Rublee, Cave, Stevenson and Ruby Stevenson, seeking judgment for the debt, interest, attorney's fees and foreclosure of the lien upon the land involved. After citations were served, Stevenson visited Rublee and said to him: However, Rublee, deeming it to his interest to be represented by an attorney of his own choice, employed H. G. Wills, Esq., a member of the Dallas Bar, who, on behalf of Rublee, filed a formal answer to plaintiff's suit; also filed a cross action against Cave and Stevenson, based upon the guaranty, alleging at length the transactions between the parties leading to the lawsuit, contending that, by reason of being sued on the note, he had been compelled to employ an attorney, to protect his interest, and to incur an obligation to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fisher Const. Co. v. Riggs
...law or arising under a contract.' See also Price v. Steves, Tex.Civ.App., 175 S.W.2d 450, writ ref., w. m. The case of Rublee v. Stevenson, Tex.Civ.App., 161 S.W.2d 528, cited by Bettell, is clearly Bettell's Points of Error are overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. ...
-
Freight Terminals, Inc. v. Ryder System, Inc.
...397 U.S. 1022, 90 S.Ct. 1263, 25 L.Ed.2d 532 (1970); Mitchell's, Inc. v. Friedman, 157 Tex. 424, 303 S.W.2d 775 (1957); Rublee v. Stevenson, 161 S.W.2d 528 (Tex. Civ.App.—Dallas 1942, no writ hist.), as supporting its position. On the other hand, Ryder Truck asserts that, while one cannot r......
-
Mitchell's, Inc. v. Friedman
...73 S.W.2d 648 (no writ); Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Reed, Tex.Civ.App., 108 S.W.2d 939 (no writ); Rublee v. Stevenson, Tex.Civ.App., 161 S.W.2d 528 (no writ). And in the related field of suretyship, we have said by way of dictum that the contract will be 'strictly construed' so a......
-
Mitchell's, Inc. v. Friedman
...his favor, and * * * it cannot be extended by construction or implication beyond its plain terms.' 23 Tex.Jur., p. 526; Rublee v. Stevenson, Tex.Civ.App., 161 S.W.2d 528; James Stewart & Co. v. Mobley, Tex.Civ.App., 282 S.W.2d 290 (writ ref.). The lease in question between appellant as less......