Teagarden v. R. B. Godley Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 12 March 1913
• Parties: TEAGARDEN v. R. B. GODLEY LUMBER CO. et al.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 973

154 S.W. 973

TEAGARDEN v. R. B. GODLEY LUMBER CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Texas.

March 12, 1913.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Fifth Supreme Judicial District.

Action by W. B. Teagarden against the R. B. Godley Lumber Company and others. From a judgment in the trial court in favor of plaintiff against the Lumber Company and against plaintiff as to other defendants, the Lumber Company sued out a writ of error, and upon the hearing in the Court of Civil Appeals judgment of the trial court as to the Lumber Company was reversed (135 S. W. 1109), from which judgment plaintiff brings the case on writ of error. Affirmed.

M. D. Carlock, of Winnsboro, and Teagarden & Teagarden, of San Antonio, for plaintiff in error. K. R. Craig and W. H. Allen, both of Dallas, and H. C. Geddie, of Mineola, for defendants in error.

BROWN, C. J.

W. B. Teagarden instituted this suit against the R. B. Godley Lumber Company, a corporation, and against R. B. Godley, J. K. Rucker, W. H. Wroten, C. C. Slaughter, Sr., C. C. Slaughter, Jr., and G. G. Wright to recover a one-third interest in 1,111 acres of land and damages. Upon the trial the judge of the district court entered the following order upon the motion of the defendants for instruction: "Now, on this the 27th day of November, 1908, at the conclusion of plaintiff's testimony in this cause, the defendants C. C. Slaughter, Sr., C. C. Slaughter, Jr., G. G. Wright, and the R. B. Godley Lumber Company, moved the court for peremptory instructions in their favor each, which motion being heard it is considered and adjudged by the court that plaintiff has made no cause as against C. C. Slaughter, Sr., C. C. Slaughter, Jr., and G. G. Wright, and they will not be required to further appear and defend herein. But as to defendant R. B. Godley Lumber Company said motion is denied. To which ruling of the court said defendant R. B. Godley Lumber Company excepts." The court then submitted the case as to defendant R. B. Godley Lumber Company, hereafter named Lumber Company.

The judge submitted the case to the jury under this charge:

"Gentlemen of the jury, your verdict in this case will be answers to the following questions, and such other questions propounded by either plaintiff or defendant:

"Question 1. Did plaintiff W. B. Teagarden agree with defendant Godley that he, Teagarden, would procure and furnish to Godley a large quantity of pine timbered land, in addition to the land in controversy, to be put into the venture contemplated by plaintiff and defendants Godley and Rucker? And, if so (what) was the condition upon which the contract was entered into? Or was the agreement one entered into by and between Teagarden, Godley, and Rucker in effect and substance that they would jointly acquire such timbered land as could be bought at advantageous prices, each to share equally in the profits after paying the purchase money to whom Godley could procure to advance same?

"Question 2. Did Teagarden offer or tender any other land other than the 1,111 acres to Godley?

"Question 3. If you find that Teagarden failed to furnish other land than the 1,111 acres of land in controversy, then was he prevented from doing so by any act or default of Godley? If so, what was it?

"Question 4. Did W. B. Teagarden represent to defendant Godley and Rucker that he, Teagarden, represented the owners of the land in controversy?

"Question 5. If you find that W. B. Teagarden represented to Godley and Rucker that he represented the owners of the land in controversy, then did Godley and Rucker agree on the purchase of said land, believing that said Teagarden was the representative of the owners?

"Question 6. Was W. B. Teagarden acting as the agent of the T. R. Hyde heirs in the sale of the land in controversy?

"Question 7. If you answer question 6 in the affirmative, then did he, Teagarden, receive any compensation from said heirs in said transaction?

"Question 8. Did W. B. Teagarden agree and consent to the agreement between Godley and Wroten as to the remuneration which Wroten was to and did receive for his services in paying the purchase price of the 1,111 acres of land?

                "[Signed]  R. W. Simpson, Judge Presiding."
                

The jury returned these answers:

"We the jury make answer to the questions propounded by the court, as follows:

"Answer to question 1: We find that they were jointly interested in the land.

"We, the jury, find the agreement one entered into by and between Teagarden, Rucker, and Godley, in effect and substance that they would jointly acquire such timber land as could be bought at advantageous prices, each to share equally in the profits after paying the purchase money to whom Godley should procure to advance same.

"Answer to question 2: He did.

"Answer to question 3: Yes; because Godley failed to furnish the money.

"Answer to question 4: He did not.

"Answer to question 5: We did not find it that way.

"Answer to question 6: He was not.

"Answer to question 7: He did not.

"Answer to question 8: Yes.

                    "[Signed] O. B. Dykes, Foreman."
                

The plaintiff requested, and the court submitted, these issues:

"(1) Did plaintiff and Rucker and Godley enter into the contract to purchase land as the same is alleged in his petition?

"(2) Did plaintiff, acting for himself and Rucker and Godley, contract for the land in question, and cause it to be transferred to Wroten?

"(3) In the matter of the dealings with the heirs of and the purchase of the land and the conveyance of it, was plaintiff acting on behalf of the Hyde heirs, or was he acting for Rucker, Godley, and himself?"

The jury answered:

"We, the jury, answer the questions propounded by plaintiff as follows:

"Answer to question 1: Yes.

"Answer to question 2: Yes.

"Answer to question 3: Rucker, Godley and himself.

                      "[Signed] O. B. Dykes, Foreman."
                

The defendants requested the following questions:

"Defendants ask the submission of the following issues in lieu of the first issue submitted by the court:

"(1) In the contract or agreement between plaintiff Teagarden and defendants Godley and Rucker, did Teagarden agree to procure and furnish a large amount of pine timbered lands in addition to the land in controversy to be put into the venture in contemplation?

"(2) If Teagarden agreed to procure and furnish other pine timbered lands, then was he prevented from doing so by any failure or refusal of Godley to furnish the money?"

To which the jury answered:

"Answer to question 1: Yes.

"Answer to question 2: He was.

                     "[Signed] O. B. Dykes, Foreman."
                

Defendants moved to set aside the finding and judgment, which was overruled, and notice of appeal was given.

Judgment was not entered at that term, but was upon motion of the plaintiff to enter judgment nunc pro tunc duly entered on the 4th day of May, 1909, in favor of plaintiff against the Lumber Company for the land, and against plaintiff as to the other defendants, from which judgment the Lumber Company sued out a writ of error, and the case was returned to the Fifth Supreme Judicial District. Upon hearing the honorable Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment of the district court as to the Lumber Company, and rendered judgment that Teagarden take nothing by his suit, from which judgment this...