Thompson v. Corbin
Decision Date | 31 January 1940 |
Docket Number | No. 5396.,5396. |
Citation | 137 S.W.2d 157 |
Parties | THOMPSON et al. v. CORBIN et ux. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Rusk County; Paul G. Brown, Judge.
Suit by W. D. Corbin and wife against C. L. Thompson and another to determine the plaintiffs' interest in oil producing properties, on ground that the plaintiffs and the named defendant had entered into a partnership or joint adventure agreement, for dissolution of partnership, for an accounting, for partition in kind or a sale, and for general relief. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, the defendants appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
Butler & Price, of Tyler, and E. H. Lasseter, of Henderson, for appellants.
Brachfield & Wolfe, of Henderson, and W. H. Sanford and Conan Cantwell, both of Dallas, for appellees.
This suit is grounded upon an alleged partnership or joint adventure, and involves certain mineral interests acquired respectively by plaintiffs, W. D. Corbin and wife, Martha, and C. L. Thompson, a defendant, in pursuance to an alleged agreement entered into on or about January 1, 1932, in which each would and did use his best efforts and endeavor to acquire mineral interests in the East Texas oil field. During 1932 and prior to December 7th, plaintiffs in the course of their operations acquired mineral interests in lands in the area. Title to same was taken in the name of plaintiffs. Prior to suit plaintiffs had developed a part of their acquisitions into oil-producing property. During the same period defendant Thompson also acquired mineral interests in the same area. Title to the property so acquired by him was taken in the name of C. L. Thompson and R. W. Fair. Prior to suit some of this property had also been developed into oil-producing property. On December 7, 1932, a charter was filed with the secretary of state which created Fair & Thompson Corporation. The mineral interests so acquired in the name of C. L. Thompson and R. W. Fair, including the oil-producing property, were listed, described and valued as part of the assets of the corporation. According to the affidavit, dated Nov. 22, 1932, filed with the charter, C. L. Thompson and wife, R. W. Fair and wife, and one Smith were named as the incorporators and directors, with Fair its president, Thompson, vice-president, and Smith, secretary. This listed Fair as a subscriber to $49,800 of the stock, Thompson to $49,900, and Mrs. Fair, Mrs. Thompson and Smith each $100.
Plaintiffs in their 4th amended original petition detailed and described the properties still held by them, the properties so acquired in the name of C. L. Thompson and R. W. Fair, and the respective oil-producing leaseholds, and alleged that 1/2 of the acquired interest in each parcel was assets of and belonged to the partnership of plaintiffs and defendant Thompson. Fair & Thompson Corporation was made a party defendant. Plaintiffs alleged that this corporation had full notice of the rights of plaintiffs at the time it is purported to have acquired title; that Thompson had excluded them from the management and control of the properties acquired by him; and had refused to recognize their interest in same or to render an accounting. Plaintiffs sought a determination of their interest in all the properties hereinbefore mentioned, a dissolution of the partnership, an accounting, partition in kind or by sale, and general relief.
Defendants Thompson and the Corporation filed a joint answer in which they urged a general demurrer and special exceptions, a general denial, a verified denial of partnership, and a plea of not guilty. Defendants further jointly answered in their third amended original answer that if a partnership agreement had been entered, which was denied, plaintiffs by their acts and deeds had repudiated and abandoned such alleged partnership agreement, in that plaintiffs had sold and assigned to others certain mineral interests which plaintiffs had acquired in their name. And that they were now estopped from asserting that such alleged agreement still continues as to any interest acquired by any of the litigants in 1932. The jury found in response to special issues Nos. 10, 11 and 12, that defendant Thompson had agreed to the assignments of the mineral interests which plaintiffs had made to these other persons. As no proposition or assignment attacks these findings, the defense of abandonment and estoppel will not be further noticed.
Defendants' propositions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, are directed to the sufficiency of plaintiffs' pleadings (1) to aver a partnership or joint adventure agreement between plaintiffs and defendant Thompson; (2) to impress a trust in favor of plaintiffs in and to the mineral interests acquired by defendant Thompson. That part of the petition pertinent here reads:
Under propositions 1 and 2 defendants assert the pleading is wholly insufficient to allege the formation of a valid partnership, "in that there are no allegations in said petition that they united or pooled their labor, property, money or skill, or either of them in said partnership;" and further, "the alleged agreement of the parties to use their best efforts and endeavor to acquire mineral interests is too vague and uncertain as a basis for the formation of a valid partnership agreement." According to the pleadings, the consideration for the alleged partnership enterprise and the acquisition of the properties involved consisted of their mutual promises to use their best efforts and endeavor to acquire same, and the performance of such promises. The word "endeavor" means "to exert physical and intellectual strength toward the attainment of an object; a systematic or continuous effort." Webster's New International Dictionary. The mutual promises of the parties to a joint adventure are a sufficient consideration to support their contract. Miller v. Walser, 42 Nev. 497, 181 P. 437, 441; 33 Cor.Jur. 848, § 20; 42 Tex.Jur. 609; James v. Fulcrod, 5 Tex. 512, 519, 55 Am.Dec. 743. The trial court did not err in overruling said exceptions. See, also, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sample v. Romine
...money and the leases were taken in the name of one party, a case practically the same on its facts as the one at bar; Thompson v. Corbin, Tex.Civ.App., 137 S.W.2d 157; Lavaca Petroleum Corp. v. Runk, Tex.Civ.App., S.W.2d 1113; Strack v. Strong, Tex.Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 313; Brady v. Brady, ......
-
Omohundro v. Matthews
...hold property for the benefit of all. See, e. g., Newton v. Gardner, Tex.Civ.App.1949, 225 S.W.2d 598, (ref., n.r.e.); Thompson v. Corbin, Tex.Civ.App.1940, 137 S.W.2d 157, (no writ history); Grennan v. Forgeron, Tex.Civ.App.1937, 101 S.W.2d 885, (err. dism'd); Martin v. Texas Co., Tex.Civ.......
-
Fitz-Gerald v. Hull
...testimony in this case, may give rise to a constructive trust. We think this case is covered by the case of Thompson v. Corbin, Tex.Civ.App., 137 S.W.2d 157, 159, (no writ history,) wherein it is said: 'Defendants' 3rd, 4th and 5th propositions are grounded upon a special exception that 'th......
-
Moore v. Sussdorf
... ... It has been held that mutual promises by the parties to a joint adventure are a sufficient consideration to support their contract. Thompson v. Corbin (Tex.Civ.App.), 137 S .W.2d 157, citing cases; Nichols v. Anderson (Tex.Civ.App.), 164 S.W .2d 268. The question of consideration thus ... ...