State Nat. Bank v. Lancaster
Decision Date | 30 March 1921 |
Docket Number | (No. 6580.) |
Citation | 229 S.W. 883 |
Parties | STATE NAT. BANK OF SAN ANTONIO et al. v. LANCASTER et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Dimmit County; W. D. Love, Special Judge.
Action by B. F. Lancaster and others against the State National Bank of San Antonio and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Reversed and rendered.
Kampmann, Burney & Browne, of San Antonio, for appellants.
Vandervoort & Johnson, of Carrizo Springs, for appellees.
On November 8, 1920, B. F. Lancaster, M. D. Ern, and M. Doscher instituted a proceeding in the district court of Dimmit county, in which they sought a construction of a certain pamphlet or booklet issued by one G. Denton, under the name of "Denton Colony Company," in which was contained a description of a tract of 32,000 acres of land in Dimmit county, which he desired to sell, agreeing in said booklet that he would donate $30,000, which he would deposit in a solvent bank in San Antonio to be held in trust and paid over to the first railroad company that would build a railroad to a town to be located on the land called Dentonio, that if no railroad was built, as desired, in 10 years, the money should be delivered to three trustees to be chosen by purchasers of the land who might own it at the expiration of the 10 years, to be used in the interest of such owners. It was alleged that the land was sold in farm lots, that the petitioners are some of the purchasers, that the money was deposited with the State Bank & Trust Company, but is now in the State National Bank of San Antonio; that the 10 years have expired and no railroad has been built; that no provision is made as to who shall call the election, although it is provided in the booklet that it "shall be held under the laws of the state of Texas." The prayer was:
The application for injunction failed to disclose the names of the usurpers of the cause of action in Bexar county except in so far as the style of the suit gives as defendants the "State National Bank et al." However, the injunction was granted, and notice issued not only to the bank named, but also to the State Bank & Trust Company, which was not named in the application. They responded, however, and, after having plea of privilege overruled, sought to have the injunction dissolved. This was denied by the court,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
O'Byrne v. Oak Park Trust and Sav. Bank, Oak Park, Ill.
...Business Men's Oil Co. v. Priddy (Tex.Com.App.) 250 S.W. 156; McKay v. Phillips (Tex.Civ.App.) 220 S.W. 176; State National Bank v. Lancaster (Tex.Civ.App.) 229 S.W. 883; Dial v. Martin (Tex.Civ.App.) 8 S.W.2d 241. The absence of a necessary party in a suit for cancellation is fundamental a......
-
Bothwell v. Farmers & Merchants State Bank & T. Co., 5207.
...Business Men's Oil Co. v. Priddy (Tex.Com. App.) 250 S.W. 156; McKay v. Phillips (Tex.Civ.App.) 220 S.W. 176; State National Bank v. Lancaster (Tex.Civ.App.) 229 S.W. 883; Dial v. Martin (Tex.Civ. App.) 8 S.W.2d The above-quoted rule is broad in its terms but it does not appear to have been......
-
Dial v. Martin
...alleged the marriage state of Mrs. Jenkins, and yet failed to account for nonjoinder of the husband." State National Bank of San Antonio v. Lancaster (Tex. Civ. App.) 229 S. W. 883; Sevier v. Teal, 16 Tex. 371; King v. Commissioners Court, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 114, 30 S. W. 257; Le Master v. L......
-
Eppenauer v. Schrup
...v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 15 Tex.Civ.App. 322, 40 S.W. 24; Tribby v. Wokee, 74 Tex. 142, 11 S.W. 1089; State Nat. Bank of San Antonio v. Lancaster, Tex.Civ.App., 229 S.W. 883, writ At the date of the institution of this suit, on June 6th, 1937, it was not certainly ascertainable in which......