Runck v. Gates
| Decision Date | 06 February 1929 |
| Docket Number | (No. 8144.) |
| Citation | 14 S.W.2d 885 |
| Parties | RUNCK et al. v. GATES. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Nueces County; W. B. Hopkins, Judge.
Suit by J. B. Gates against John J. Runck and others. From a decree for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed in part, and in part reversed and remanded.
Boone & Savage and F. A. Raymer, all of Corpus Christi, for appellants.
E. B. Ward and S. Eldon Dyer, both of Corpus Christi, for appellee.
This is a suit by appellee against John Runck and the Southwestern Guaranty Title Company for the cancellation of a deed and setting aside a sale to certain real estate in Corpus Christi, known as lot 9 in block 14 of the Bay View addition, for actual and exemplary damages, and that appellants be restrained from recording a certain deed signed by appellee or from interfering with the title and possession of said land.
The cause was tried by jury, and on their answers to special issues judgment was rendered that the sale be set aside, the deed canceled; that appellee recover of John Runck the sum of $250 exemplary damages, and that the Guaranty Title Company, which held possession of the deed executed by appellee to Valentine Runck, be enjoined from delivering the said deed to any one, or recording the same.
The papers which appellee seeks to cancel are all connected with Valentine Runck. The deed executed by appellee is to Valentine Runck, and the promissory notes are signed by him alone. The name of John J. Runck nor of the title company appears on any of the papers connected with the transaction.
The action to cancel is in a court of equity, and, of course, governed by rules as old as the system of equity itself. Pomeroy states the governing motive of equity in the administration of its remedial system is to grant full relief, and to adjust in one suit the rights and duties of all parties, which really grow out of or are connected with the subject-matter of the suit. The fundamental principle concerning parties is that all persons in whose favor or against whom there might be a recovery, however insignificant, and also all persons who are interested, although indirectly in the subject-matter and relief granted, and whose rights might be affected by the decree, shall be made parties to the suit. Pom. Eq. Jur. § 114. As said by Black, Rescission and Cancellation, § 657: "In order to obtain a decree in equity for the rescission of a contract or the cancellation of a written instrument, it is necessary to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Byrne v. Oak Park Trust and Sav. Bank, Oak Park, Ill.
...to cancel the deed from Loeffler to Byrne without having before it all of the parties affected by the proposed cancellation. Runck v. Gates, 14 S.W.2d 885 (San Antonio Tex.Civ.App., 1929, no writ). In Sharpe v. Landowners Oil Ass'n, 127 Tex. 147, 92 S.W.2d 435, 436 (1936) it was said: 'It i......
-
Royal Petroleum Corporation v. McCallum
...remand the case. Barmore v. Darragh (Tex.Civ.App.) 227 S.W. 522." The governing rule was more fully stated in the case of Runck v. Gates, Tex.Civ. App., 14 S.W.2d 885, in this language: "The action to cancel is in a court of equity, and, of course, governed by rules as old as the system of ......
-
Wells v. Lewis
...who may be affected by the cancellation of an instrument must be made parties to a suit to cancel same. It was said in Runck v. Gates, Tex.Civ.App., 14 S.W.2d 885 (which holding was expressly approved by the Supreme Court in Royal Petroleum Corp. v. McCallum, 134 Tex. 543, 135 S.W.2d 958, 9......
-
Stribling v. Polunsky, 9571.
...v. Bramlette, Tex. Civ.App., 48 S.W.2d 752, error ref.; Bishop v. Sanford, Tex.Civ. App., 35 S.W.2d 800, error dismissed; Runck v. Gates, Tex.Civ.App., 14 S.W.2d 885; Stewart v. Miller, Tex.Civ.App., 271 S.W. 311, error ref. None of these decisions is in point upon the issue at bar. They al......