Stewart Abstract Co. v. Judicial Commission
Decision Date | 13 July 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 3509.,3509. |
Citation | 131 S.W.2d 686 |
Parties | STEWART ABSTRACT CO. et al. v. JUDICIAL COMMISSION OF JEFFERSON COUNTY et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; R. L. Murray, Judge.
Suit by the Judicial Commission of Jefferson County and others against the Stewart Abstract Company and others to enjoin defendants from engaging in alleged illegal practice of law. From an order overruling defendants' plea of privilege seeking to have the venue of the case transferred to Galveston county, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Stewart & DeLange, of Houston, for appellant.
H. C. Keen, Gilbert T. Adams, Geo. A. Weller, W. T. McNeill, W. O. Bowers, John L. Bell, A. M. Huffman, Chas. J. Heidrick, and W. M. Crook, all of Beaumont, and B. T. McWhorter, Jr., of Pt. Arthur, for appellees.
This appeal is from an order overruling a plea of privilege filed by appellants, seeking to have the venue of the case transferred to Galveston County, where the Stewart Abstract Company, a corporation, has its principal office. The other appellant, Stewart Title Guaranty Company, is also a corporation and has its office and place of business in El Paso. Both appellants maintain an office and place of business in Beaumont, Jefferson County, Texas. In fact they appear to be operated under the same management, the same person being manager of both.
The only question presented by this appeal is the contention of appellants that appellees, on the hearing of the plea, did not establish prima facie a cause of action. The suit was filed in the 60th District Court of Jefferson County by Gilbert T. Adams, W. T. McNeill, A. M. Huffman, W. M. Crook, W. O. Bowers, H. C. Keen, Geo. A. Weller, John L. Bell, Charles Heidrick and B. T. McWhorter, Jr., individually and as members of a group of the Jefferson County Bar, designated as "Judicial Commission of Jefferson County, Texas." The petition charged the defendants, Stewart Title Guaranty Company and Stewart Abstract Company, with the illegal practice of law and sought an injunction enjoining them, their officers and agents, and employees, from engaging in the practice of law and from doing any of several specified acts alleged to have been done in the past by the defendants. The specific acts charged against the defendants were:
We shall state only briefly the evidence offered by plaintiffs on the hearing of the plea. It was shown that in connection with FHA loans, a number of which seem to have been handled by defendants, it has been the custom of the defendants to prepare, or fill out on forms furnished them, the mortgages or mechanic's liens, notes, the transfer thereof, etc., the charges made therefor being included in the fee charged for insuring the title. It was also shown that a title opinion was prepared in connection with each such guarantee of title. It was testified by Miss N. G. Robinson, the local manager of the defendant companies, and who is also a licensed practicing attorney, that such opinions are prepared for the benefit of the Stewart Title Guaranty Company. However, as established by the testimony of a witness, Walter R. Wortman, he received from the Stewart Title Guaranty Company an opinion on his title, and the opinion was introduced in evidence. It appears to be a copy of the opinion prepared for use of the Title Company and was signed, "N. G. Robertson, Attorney for Stewart Title Guaranty Co., Beaumont, Texas." There was also introduced in evidence an excerpt taken from page 83 of the directory of the American Title Association, 1938, and the symbols from page 1 of the directory, which show that Stewart Abstract Company, Beaumont, Texas, was listed for, "A", that is abstracts; "TI", that is title insurance, and "E", examinations. There was also introduced in evidence an advertisement appearing in the Beaumont Enterprise, a daily newspaper, on Monday, May 10, 1937, by the Stewart Abstract Company, reading:
It was shown by the testimony of a witness, E. L. Stewart, that on July 27, 1937, after the above mentioned advertisement appeared in the Beaumont Enterprise, he applied to the Stewart Title Guaranty Company for an opinion as to the title of lots 7 and 8, in block 70, of the North Addition to the City of Beaumont, and that he received an opinion on the title, which opinion was introduced in evidence and reads as follows:
There was next introduced in evidence a receipt, reading as follows:
"`P-12, ROB' "Receipt Dated 7/27/1937 Stewart Title Guaranty Company to E. L. Stewart "Beaumont, Texas, 7-27-1937 "E. L. Stewart In Account with Stewart Title Guaranty Company "Phone 4952 320 Perlstein Building "Guaranty No "Title Work $15.00 "Paid 7-27-37 "Stewart Abst.Co., By F.L."
Miss Nellie G. Robertson, manager of the appellant companies, and who is, as above stated, also a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
West Virginia State Bar v. Earley
...Bar Association v. Automobile Service Association, 55 R.I. 122, 179 A. 139, 100 A.L.R. 226; Stewart Abstract Company v. Judicial Commission of Jefferson County, Tex.Civ.App., 131 S.W.2d 686; McCloskey v. San Antonio Public Service Company, Tex.Civ.App., 51 S.W.2d 1088; Commonwealth v. Jones......
-
Hulse v. Criger
...v. Alfani, 227 N.Y. 334, 125 N.E. 671; Cain v. Merchants National Bank & Trust Co., 66 N.D. 746, 268 N.W. 719; Stewart Abstract Co. v. Judicial Comm., Tex.Civ.App., 131 S.W.2d 686; Hexter Title & Abstract Co. v. Grievance Comm., 142 Tex. 506, 179 S.W.2d 946, 157 A.L.R. 268; Paul v. Stanley,......
-
Nationwide Mut. Ins. v. Unauthorized Prac. of Law
...(holding that there was a fact question regarding whether the title company was engaged in the practice of law); Stewart Abstract Co. v. Judicial Comm'n, 131 S.W.2d 686, 690 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1939, no writ). There now exists a statute which specifically prohibits title companies from d......
-
Palmer v. Unauthorized Practice Com. of State Bar, 207
...preparation of legal instruments of all kinds and all advice to clients involve the practice of law. Stewart Abstract Co. v. Judicial Commission of Jefferson County, 131 S.W.2d 686 (Tex.Civ.App.), no writ hist.; In re Duncan, 83 S.C. 186, 65 S.E. 210, 24 L.R.A.,N.S., 750. A deed form can be......
-
Defense by salaried counsel: a bane or a blessing?
...note 5. (11.) See, e.g., Mullins-Johnson, 9 F.Supp. 175. (12.) E.g., Stewart Abstract Co. v. Judicial Commission of Jefferson County, 131 S.W.2d 686 (Tex.Civ.App. 1939); Pacific Employers Inc. Co. v. Carpenter, 10 Cal.App.2d 592 (Cal.App. 1936). (13.) In re Otterness, 232 N.W. 318 (Minn. 19......