Shelton v. Trigg
Decision Date | 13 October 1920 |
Docket Number | (No. 1584.) |
Citation | 226 S.W. 761 |
Parties | SHELTON v. TRIGG et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Potter County; Henry S. Bishop, Judge.
Suit for partnership accounting by D. C. Trigg and another against J. M. Shelton. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Hendricks & Mood, of Amarillo, and Coffee & Holmes, of Miami, for appellant.
Kimbrough, Underwood, Jackson & Simpson and Miller & Guleke, all of Amarillo, for appellees.
This is an action for a partnership accounting brought by D. C. Trigg and his son, S. L. Trigg, against appellant, Shelton. The parties entered into a partnership in the month of July, 1912, purchasing from the Freehold Land & Cattle Company, Limited, hereafter called the syndicate, certain live stock and leasing certain lands belonging to the syndicate. The memorandum agreement between the partnership and the syndicate provides, in substance, that the syndicate agrees to sell to the partnership all the cattle, horses, and mules located on its ranch in the counties of Dallam, Hartley, Oldham, and Deaf Smith, there being approximately 22,000 head of cattle and 400 head of horses and mules. The contract provides for the delivery of the live stock on or before the 1st day of November, 1912, with the privilege of gathering and delivering any remnant of cattle on or before May 1, 1913. It further provides that the partnership shall pay for all cattle delivered at the rate of $37 per head, but that unmerchantable cattle and the calves of 1912 are not to be counted; that horses and mules shall be paid for at $60 per head, payment for the live stock to be made as follows:
"The sum of $50,000 in cash upon execution of this contract and the sum of $200,000 in cash on November 1, 1912, the balance to be evidenced by five notes of equal amounts, executed by (the partners) jointly and severally, payable to the syndicate in whole or in part on or before the 1st day of November of each year for five successive years, beginning with November 1, 1913, with interest thereon from November 1, 1912, at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum, interest payable annually."
There are other stipulations with reference to the execution of a deed of trust upon the property, sale of the purchased property by the partnership, the payment for cattle to be subsequently delivered and the branding of the same, not necessary to be set out. The contract further provides that the syndicate shall lease to the partnership for a period of five years and four months from January 1, 1913, approximately 600,000 acres of land, situated in the above-named counties, at the rate of 10 cents per acre per annum, the rent to be paid quarterly. It is further provided that the partnership shall keep all buildings, fences, wells, windmills, etc., upon the leased premises in repair at the expense of the partnership, except that the materials for repairing wells, windmills, and drinking tubs should be furnished by the syndicate at its expense. The partnership is given the privilege of subletting any part of the leased premises, but is to be held responsible to the syndicate for the payment of the rent due the syndicate on all lands subleased. The partnership is to have the free use of all tools, farming implements, repairing outfits, and wagons located on the premises, with certain exceptions named. This contract purports to have been executed in the month of July, 1912, the exact date being left blank. On the 31st day of July, 1912, the written contract of partnership as entered into between appellant, Shelton, and D. C. and S. L. Trigg is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Willis v. Harvey
...v. Cavazos, Tex.Civ.App., 339 S.W.2d 224, ref., n. r. e.; Ware v. Chatham, Tex.Civ.App., 56 S.W.2d 229, Writ dism.; Shelton v. Trigg, Tex.Civ.App., 226 S.W. 761, modified Tex.Com.App., 249 S.W. 209; Crawford v. Austin, Tex.Civ.App., 293 S.W. 275, error dism. w. o. j.; 32 Tex.Jur., Partnersh......
-
Exporters' & Traders' Compress & W. Co. v. Spivey
...30 Cyc. pp. 1303-1305; Goodhue v. Hawkins (Tex. Civ. App.) 133 S. W. 288; Ladd v. Sou. Cotton Compress Co., 53 Tex. 172; Shelton v. Trigg (Tex. Civ. App.) 226 S. W. 761; Smith v. Houston Nat. Exchange Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 202 S. W. 181; Tel. Co. v. State, 40 Okl. 417, 138 Pac. 1033; Hahl &......
-
Trigg v. Shelton
...another against J. M. Shelton. From a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals reversing and remanding a judgment of the district court (226 S. W. 761), both parties bring error. Judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals reversed and judgment of district court Kimbrough, Underwood & Jackson, of ......