Schulte v. Republic Supply Co.
Citation | 297 S.W. 667 |
Decision Date | 17 May 1927 |
Docket Number | (No. 8849.) |
Parties | SCHULTE et al. v. REPUBLIC SUPPLY CO.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from District Court, Matagorda County; M. S. Munson, Judge.
Action by Paul Schulte and another against the Republic Supply Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Boyles, Brown & Scott, Stevens & Stevens, and C. F. Stevens, all of Houston, for appellants.
Jno. G. Logue, Richard Burns, and Andrews, Streetman, Logue & Mobley, all of Houston, for appellee.
This suit was brought by Paul Schulte individually and E. L. McDonald, as receiver of the Monarch Oil Syndicate No. 1, against the Republic Supply Company, to recover damages for an alleged unlawful seizure and conversion, under a writ of attachment sued out at the instance of the supply company against J. W. Gillespie, of certain oil well machinery, referred to as "equipment," sold by it to Gillespie, which was then being used by Schulte in drilling an oil well for the syndicate on its lease in the Markham field, in Matagorda county.
The cause was tried before the court without a jury, and resulted in a judgment in favor of the defendant. There were no findings of fact or conclusions of law filed in the trial court.
The rule on appeal in such instance is:
"Every presumption not inconsistent with the record will be indulged in favor of the judgment, and any doubts as to the facts raised by the evidence and any view of the law which the trial court could have applied under the pleadings and evidence in the case will be resolved in support of the judgment." Byers v. Thacker, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 492, 94 S. W. 138; Campbell v. Teeple (Tex. Civ. App.) 273 S. W. 304; Cisco & N. E. R. Co. v. Texas Pipe Line Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 240 S. W. 990; Diltz v. Dodson (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. 356; First State Bank of Amarillo v. Jones (Tex. Civ. App.) 171 S. W. 1057; Hines v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 260 S. W. 690; King v. Pond, (Tex. Civ. App.) 283 S. W. 607; Robertson v. Lee (Tex. Civ. App.) 230 S. W. 730.
The reaches of the cause here will be measured accordingly.
Schulte was drilling the well for the oil syndicate under a contract between them, and for that purpose rented, for a period not definitely appearing, at $800 per month, a drilling rig from J. W. Gillespie, which included the "equipment" in question — that is, an A. W. P. Co. swivel, a 45 H. P. Rep. Spec. boiler, a Gardner boiler pump, and other inconsequential appliances; this rental contract merely gave Schulte the right to use the rig in drilling the well so long as he paid Gillespie, its owner, $800 per month for the privilege; the attachment writ, issued by the district court of Harris county against J. W. Gillespie alone, was delivered to Frank Carr, as sheriff of Matagorda county, he being also at that particular time receiver for the Monarch Syndicate, and, according to the two officers themselves, was levied by him as such, acting through his deputy, Oscar Barber, substantially in this way. The sheriff testified:
The deputy verified these statements as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wingart v. Baxter, 9388.
...National Grand Lodge, Loyal Friends of America Benevolent Ass'n, v. Wilson (Tex. Civ. App.) 6 S.W.(2d) 206; Schulte v. Republic Supply Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 297 S. W. 667; Hines v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 260 S. W. 688; Moore v. Porter (Tex. Civ. App.) 281 S. W. 232; Austi......
-
Shepherd v. Woodson Lumber Co., 1404.
...690, pars. 2 and 3, and authorities there cited; Smith v. Patterson (Tex. Civ. App.) 294 S. W. 984, 986, par. 3; Schulte v. Republic Supply Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 297 S. W. 667, par. 1; Wingart v. Baxter (Tex. Civ. App.) 30 S.W.(2d) 522, 526, par. 5, 531, par. 10; Brotherhood of Railroad Trai......
-
Bondies v. Glenn, 1815.
...a physical seizure of the property and consequent disturbance of the owner's possession. 5 Tex.Jur. 270, sec. 109; Schulte v. Republic Supply Co., Tex.Civ.App., 297 S. W. 667; Low v. Ne Smith, Tex.Civ.App., 77 S.W. 32. Plaintiffs' petition, in effect, negatived the existence of any injury c......
-
Mutual Inv. Corporation v. Hays, 1436-6080.
...it to render judgment in the manner and form as rendered. Cabell v. Floyd, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 135, 50 S. W. 478; Schulte et al. v. Republic Sup. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 297 S. W. 667; Griffith v. Reagan (Tex. Civ. App.) 114 S. W. 1167; Sutherland v. Cabiness (Tex. Civ. App.) 146 S. W. The trial......