Texas Gauze Mills v. Goatley

Decision Date29 June 1938
Docket NumberNo. 8702.,8702.
Citation119 S.W.2d 887
PartiesTEXAS GAUZE MILLS v. GOATLEY.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from District Court, Comal County; M. C. Jeffrey, Judge.

Action by J. H. Goatley against Texas Gauze Mills for fees for auditing defendant's books, making a financial statement, and applying for loan for defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Neil E. Beaton, of San Antonio, and J. H. Schleyer, of New Braunfels, for appellant.

Stahl & Sohn, of San Antonio, for appellee.

BLAIR, Justice.

Appellee, J. H. Goatley, sued appellant, Texas Gauze Mills, to recover $450, the amount due J. B. Andrews & Company for auditing appellant's books and making a financial statement in connection with its application for a loan; the claims of the auditing company having been assigned to appellee. A jury trial upon special issues resulted in verdict and judgment for appellee; hence this appeal.

Having heretofore stricken the statement of facts because not properly prepared nor timely filed, appellant presents the following questions which may be considered in the absence of a statement of facts:

Appellant contends that since appellee's petition declared upon two separate and distinct oral contracts, one of which showed on its face to be barred by limitation and the other to be for an amount below the jurisdiction of the court, the court erred in not sustaining appellant's plea in abatement and in not dismissing the suit. Primarily the plea in abatement related to an alleged misjoinder of causes of action, but did call the court's attention to the fact that one item sued for by appellee was alleged to be barred by limitation at the time of the filing of the suit; and that the remaining item was for an amount below the jurisdiction of the court.

The petition alleged in substance that J. B. Andrews & Company agreed to audit appellant's books and to make a financial statement and application for a loan for appellant; that the audit and services were completed about August 22, 1934, for which appellant agreed to pay $350; that it was agreed that appellant would have a reasonable time after the audit and application for loan were made in which to pay therefor; and that the period from August 22, 1934, to January 1, 1935, was a reasonable time in which to pay for the audit and services. Appellee further alleged that after the loan was rejected on November 15, 1934, appellant again employed J. B. Andrews & Company to audit its business covering the period from about July 22, 1934, the end of the first audit, to on or about December 31, 1934; this contract being made about January 15, 1935, and was completed January 20, 1935, and was made for the purpose of further aiding the application of appellant for a loan; and for this audit and service appellee sued for $100, the agreed price of the audit and service.

There was no misjoinder of causes of action because both audits were made by the same company and between the same parties, and each was made for the purpose of aiding appellant in obtaining a loan, and each related to the same undertaking. Where claims are so closely related that the investigation of one necessarily develops facts with respect to the other; or where the matters are of the same nature and the relief sought is similar, or can be heard together without confusion or uncertainty; or where no inconvenience or injury will result from joining the causes of action, they may be adjudicated in one suit. This doctrine has resulted from the efforts of courts to bring about a policy which will avoid a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Moore v. Sims
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 11, 1979
    ...party." Thus, Texas procedural law has long encouraged joinder of claims in civil actions. See, e. g., Texas Gauze Mills v. Goatley, 119 S.W.2d 887, 888 (Tex.Civ.App.1938); Blair v. Gay, 33 Tex. 157, 165 (1870). In a very recent case, In re R. E. W., 545 S.W.2d 573 (1976), the Texas Court o......
  • Lockard v. Deitch
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • May 6, 1993
    ...occurrence of some future event tolls the statute of limitations until the occurrence of that event. They also rely on Texas Gauze Mills v. Goatley, 119 S.W.2d 887, 888 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1938, no writ), in which the court of appeals held that the defense of limitations may be waived by ......
  • Powell v. Hamilton, 2685.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • September 19, 1946
    ...limitations, but burden of pleading and proving the claim was barred was on the administrator." In the case of Texas Gauze Mills v. Goatley, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 887, 888, a similar question was involved. In that case the petition alleged, in substance: "That J. B. Andrews & Company agr......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT