Staats v. Miller
| Decision Date | 14 November 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. A-3256,A-3256 |
| Citation | 243 S.W.2d 686,150 Tex. 581 |
| Parties | STAATS et al. v. MILLER. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
James W. Witherspoon, John D. Aikin, Mel Ruth Aikin and Wayne Thomas, all of Hereford, for petitioners.
Cowsert & Bybee, Hereford, for respondent.
This is a suit for damages for the alleged conversion of a cotton harvester filed by petitioners, O. T. Staats and F. M. Woolbright, against respondent, H. E. Miller. At the conclusion of petitioners' testimony the trial court granted respondent's motion for an instructed verdict and entered judgment accordingly. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. 240 S.W.2d 342.
Respondent moved for the instructed verdict on the ground that petitioners had pleaded a 'single act of alleged conversion' and had not alleged any other cause of action, except for conversion, 'while the evidence introduced by the plaintiff clearly shows that there was no conversion and could not have been a conversion by defendant of said cotton harvester.' In arguments on the motion petitioners' counsel contended that a conversion had been shown but that should the court conclude otherwise, both the pleadings and the proof required the case to be submitted to the jury on the theory of money had and received.
The Court of Civil Appeals held that petitioners failed either to allege or to prove an action for conversion and that the allegations were not sufficient to state a cause of action for money had and received.
We find it unnecessary to decide whether a cause of action for conversion was alleged or proved because we are convinced that petitioners' allegations were sufficient to raise the issue of money had and received.
There was a comparable situation in the early case of Wiseman v. Baylor et al., 69 Tex. 63, 6 S.W. 743. In that case Baylor owed Wiseman $300 secured by a deed of trust upon city lots which were the separate property of Mrs. Baylor. The Baylors conveyed the property to Wiseman by deed absolute on its face. Two years later Wiseman sold the lots for $2800 cash. The Baylors sued Wiseman for the $2800 less the amount then due on the $300 note and $80 taxes against the lots paid by Wiseman, alleging that, although the deed was in terms absolute, it was intended by all parties to be only a deed in trust to secure the debt due by Baylor to Wiseman; that the lots were worth much more than the debt and were rapidly increasing in value, so they told Wiseman that they did not want the lots sold at that time; that Wiseman thereupon agreed, in consideration of having the legal title vested in him, to hold the lots until they had reached their highest market value, when he would sell them and pay the proceeds over to the Baylors less the amount of the note then due plus such taxes as he may have paid on the lots; that, relying on this promise, they executed the deed but that, in violation of their trust, Wiseman had refused to pay them any of the proceeds of his sale of the lots. Wiseman demurred to the petition, denied all its allegations and pleaded specially that Baylor had long been unable to pay anything on the $300 note and had therefore conveyed Wiseman the lots by absolute deed without any trust or side agreement to pay part of the proceeds of a later sale, to the Baylors. The proposition urged in support of Wiseman's general demurrer was that the relation of debtor and creditor must continue to exist after a deed is executed in order to engraft a parol trust upon it and give it the effect of a mortgage. The trial court overruled the general demurrer and the trial resulted in a jury verdict and judgment for the Baylors for $2034.88. This court affirmed the judgment holding that, although Wiseman's proposition might be sound, his obligation to pay the excess money according to promise was none the less binding. 'Admit this to have been an absolute sale, the vendors reserving no interest or trust in the land which they could enforce in equity, this did not prevent them from recovering money from the vendee, which he had promised to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Tex. Realty Holdings, LLC
...belongs to another.” H.E.B., L.L.C. v. Ardinger, 369 S.W.3d 496, 507 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth, 2012, no pet.) (citing Staats v. Miller, 150 Tex. 581, 243 S.W.2d 686, 687 (1951)). BAC is the only party seeking summary judgment on its TTLA and money-had-and-received claims. Other than stating the......
-
Elbar Invs., Inc. v. Okedokun (In re Okedokun)
...whether the defendant holds money, which belongs to the plaintiff." Bank of Saipan , 380 F.3d at 840 (quoting Staats v. Miller , 150 Tex. 581, 243 S.W.2d 686, 687–88 (1951) ). Under Texas law, "[t]o establish a cause of action for money had and received, a plaintiff must show that a defenda......
-
Monge v. Rojas (In re Monge)
...(1) the defendant holds money; and (2) the money belongs to the plaintiff in equity and good conscience. See, e.g., Staats v. Miller, 243 S.W.2d 686, 687-88 (Tex. 1951). And in Texas, a claim based on money had and received is an equitable claim. See Doss v. Homecoming Fin. Network, Inc., 2......
-
In re Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc.
...claim for restitution or unjust enrichment,” the Texas Supreme Court offered the following authority: See, e.g., Staats v. Miller, 150 Tex. 581, 243 S.W.2d 686, 687–88 (1951) (allowing restitution for excess money held by defendant after selling plaintiffs' cotton harvester pursuant to oral......
-
Chapter 3-6 Money Had and Received
...and • Any facts which tend to establish the money or its equivalent belongs to the defendant.248 --------Notes:[228] Staats v. Miller, 243 S.W.2d 686, 687 (1951).[229] H.E.B., L.L.C. v. Ardinger, 369 S.W.3d 496, 507 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012); First Tech Fed. Credit Union v. Fisher, No. 14......