Scott v. Weaver

• Decision Date: 30 November 1927
• Docket Number: (No. 7176.)
• Citation: 2 S.W.2d 870
• Parties: SCOTT et al. v. WEAVER et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

2 S.W.2d 870

SCOTT et al. v. WEAVER et al.

(No. 7176.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

November 30, 1927.

Rehearing Denied December 21, 1927.

Appeal from District Court, Caldwell County; M. C. Jeffrey, Judge.

Suit by Jim Scott and others against W. C. Weaver and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and rendered.

C. F. Richards, of Lockhart, and Hart, Patterson & Hart, of Austin, for appellants.

E. B. Coopwood and Nye H. Clark, both of Lockhart, and Black & Graves, of Austin, for appellees.

BLAIR, J.

As concerns this appeal appellants sued appellee to cancel a conveyance to him of a one-sixteenth undivided oil, gas, and mineral interest in two acres of land owned by appellants in the Luling oil field, upon grounds of fraud and concealment of material facts; it being alleged that appellee was their agent and attorney in fact, and occupied a position of trust and confidence in respect to the property conveyed at the time of the conveyance. Appellee denied the allegations of fraud and concealment of material facts.

A trial to a jury upon special issues resulted in a finding that appellee gave appellants the benefit of all his information and knowledge affecting all material facts. Upon the jury's verdict, judgment was rendered denying a cancellation of the instrument of conveyance, from which judgment this appeal is perfected.

We sustain the contention of appellants that appellee, who occupied the relationship of agent, and was charged with the duty of making full disclosure of all facts materially affecting the conveyance, and that the transactions conveying the property to him were fair to his principals, failed to do so under the uncontradicted evidence. And, since this conclusion disposes of the case, we will not discuss any of appellants' other propositions, but overrule them as being immaterial.

In 1923 appellants Jim Scott, a negro laborer, and his sisters, Sarah Sattiwhite, Lue Freeman, and Lizzie King, negro farmer women, executed to an oil company a regular form oil and gas lease on the two acres of land in question, reserving the usual oneeighth royalty interest. Neither of the appellants had any experience in the matter of oil production, and each had a very limited education. On May 25, 1923, an oil well producing 2,000 barrels per day was brought in on the land adjoining the two acres and 300 feet from it. Thereafter, between June 1 and 10, 1923, appellee W. C. Weaver, a white man, and an experienced business man, actively engaged at the time in buying and selling oil and gas leases and oil royalty interests in the Luling oil field, and with knowledge of the well on the adjoining land, sought appellants on three occasions to appoint him their agent to look after their interests in the oil lease theretofore given to the oil company. Appellee had never represented appellants, and, with the exception of Jim Scott, only knew them casually; but on June 10, 1923, by written instrument, they appointed appellee their agent and attorney in fact to take possession of the land, to collect and handle the money accruing to them under the oil and gas lease, to sell and convey royalty interest therein, to represent them generally in all contracts and transactions involving the said lease, and for which services appellee was to receive 10 per cent. of all money collected.

Shortly after the execution of the agency contract, some of the appellants became interested in selling one-half their royalty interest to a Mr. Kokernot, concerning which appellee testified as follows:

"Before I talked with Mr. Kokernot on Saturday evening, Lizzie King came down to the store, and had his name on a paper, and an offer of $900 for it. She wanted to sell it, and was very anxious for it to be sold, and I told her at that time I didn't think that was enough for it, but, if they wanted to sell it, I would come out and talk to her about it, and, if they all wanted to sell it, I would not do anything, unless they all wanted to sell. That was talking to Lizzie that I said that — that I would come out to her house, and she could talk to Lue and to Sarah, and, if they wanted to sell it, we would go out to San Antonio and see Jim about it."

On Monday or Tuesday following the above conversation with Lizzie, appellee went to her house, Lue being present, and the following conversation took place, according to appellee:

"Lizzie was very anxious to sell, and wanted to sell so badly, and she insisted that I should sell it, and I told her, if they wanted to sell it, she could talk to Sarah, and then we would go to San Antonio and see Jim about it. It was later on that I told them that I didn't think that was enough for it at that time, but, if they wanted to sell, that I did not believe that Mr. Kokernot was the man to sell to; he had the lease, and had talked to me about it, and, if they were going to sell, that I would buy it from them. If they would just as soon, I would take it at $900, less 10 per cent. — I would buy it."

Later in the same week appellee went again to see Lizzie and Lue, who informed him that Sarah was agreeable to the sale, and on Sunday following he took Lizzie and Lue, Sarah not going, in his car to see Jim at San Antonio. He left them at Jim's house for the purpose of talking the matter over, and later in the day he returned, and, according to his testimony, the following took place:

"They said they had talked the matter over, all of them, and that they wanted to sell it. I told them that I didn't think Mr. Kokernot was the man to sell it to, and I didn't think that was sufficient for it, but, if they wanted to sell it and were going to sell it, I would like to buy it with the $900, less my 10 per cent., and Jim said he would rather I would have it than anybody, and those papers were prepared and signed then — the royalty deed. * * *

"We talked about the matter considerably there at the house Sunday evening. We were there about an hour. We, of course, discussed it pro and con. I told them that Mr. Kokernot was not the proper man to sell to, and the price was too little, and advised them not to sell it, but, if they were determined to sell, I would give them the same price. This instrument was in blank form, and I filled it out myself. * * *

"During the conversation about this instrument, and signing the instrument, we all discussed the consideration, the $900. Lizzie and Lue and...