Sabine Hardwood Co. v. West Lumber Co.
| Decision Date | 29 January 1918 |
| Docket Number | 3093. |
| Parties | SABINE HARDWOOD CO., Limited, v. WEST LUMBER CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
W. D Gordon and Henry G. Russell, both of Beaumont, Tex., for appellant.
C. L Carter, of Houston, Tex., and Chas. T. Butler, of Beaumont Tex., for appellees.
Before WALKER and BATTS, Circuit Judges, and GRUBB, District Judge.
By this suit the appellant asserts an interest in land claimed to have been acquired by a conveyance of W. D. Gordon to it. Whatever interest Gordon had was involved in a suit in which a final decree was rendered on December 4, 1911. Gordon was the attorney for H. P. Weir, a party to that suit. After the rendition of the decree just mentioned, Gordon acquired Weir's interest in the land involved in the suit. In May 1912, persons who had been parties to the suit in which the decree mentioned was rendered brought in the same court against Weir and others a suit, an object of which was to reform the decree rendered in the former suit. Gordon was not named as a party to that suit. Weir by a plea which was prepared by or at the instance of Gordon, set up that he was no longer interested in the subject-matter of the suit, that prior to the institution of that suit he had sold and conveyed all his interest to Gordon, and that Gordon, after the institution of that suit, sold and conveyed his interest to the Sabine Hardwood Company, the appellant. Gordon actively participated in the trial of the second suit, which resulted in a judgment or decree reforming the one previously rendered. He examined and cross-examined witnesses, prepared charges, and made an argument to the jury. He conducted such resistance as was made to the granting of the relief sought by the plaintiffs in the suit. It is not disputed that, if he was bound by the decree rendered in that suit, the claim asserted by the appellant cannot prevail.
Gordon had a property interest in defeating the relief sought in the second suit. It was plainly disclosed that Weir, his former client, was no longer concerned. A denial of the prayed-for reformation of the former decree would have inured to the benefit of Gordon and his corporation grantee, practically all of the stock of which he owns. In assuming and managing the defense made, he was undertaking to protect an interest of his own. From the fact that he was not nominally a party to the suit, it does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States v. Gex' Estate
... ... attorneys ... Bell v ... George. 204 S.W. 516; Hardwood Co. v. West Lbr. Co., ... 248 F. 123 ... Complainants ... ...
-
Hoskins v. Hotel Randolph Co.
...v. Dinsmore, 75 N. H. 574, 78 A. 620;Searchlight Horn Co. v. American Graphophone Co. (D. C.) 240 F. 745;Sabine Hardwood Co. v. West Lumber Co. (C. C. A.) 248 F. 123, 34 C. J. 1006. [3][4] The only questions involving its liability upon which it has not been heard are whether it was made un......
-
Hoskins v. Hotel Randolph Co.
... ... v. American Graphophone Co. , ... 240 F. 745; Sabine Hardwood Co. v. West Lbr. Co. , ... 248 F. 123; 34 Corpus Juris 1006. The ... ...
-
Ex Parte Foster
...Inc. v. Empire Plating Co., D.C., 5 F.Supp. 687; Regal Knitwear Co. v. N. L. R. B., 65 S.Ct. 478, 89 L.Ed. ___; Sabine Hardwood Co. v. West Lumber Co., 5 Cir., 248 F. 123; St. Joseph Brewing Co. v. Hauber, 151 Mo. App. 423, 132 S.W. 54; see also Rule 683, Texas Rules of Civil We hold that r......