Waggoner v. Herring-Showers Lumber Co.
Decision Date | 10 June 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 4747.,4747. |
Citation | 40 S.W.2d 1 |
Parties | WAGGONER v. HERRING-SHOWERS LUMBER CO. et al. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Weeks, Morrow, Francis & Hankerson, of Wichita Falls, for plaintiff in error.
Fischer & Fischer, of Wichita Falls, for defendants in error.
We refer to the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals for a complete statement of this case. 288 S. W. 260.
Suit was brought by the Herring-Showers Lumber Company against the Burk-Waggoner Oil Company, a corporation, and R. M. Waggoner and Clois L. Greene, on a debt of the corporation. It was instituted against the two individual defendants by reason of transactions hereinafter described. R. M. Waggoner was the president of the corporation, and Clois L. Greene its general manager. Both were members of the board of directors, and with S. A. L. Morgan, vice president, V. D. Tennyson, secretary-treasurer, and W. R. Ferguson constituted the board. On September 27, 1920, the corporation was hopelessly insolvent, and had quit, or was about to quit, its corporate business. On that date it owed approximately $300,000, and had about $100,000 in assets, consisting of personal and real property. On the date named there was a regularly called meeting of the board of directors of the company, held at its office in Wichita Falls, at which were present all the directors above named. At this meeting certain transactions took place, a memorandum of which was incorporated in the minutes. Recitations from the minutes are as follows:
After this meeting of the board of directors the Burk-Waggoner Oil Company ceased to be a going concern, and transacted no further business.
In accordance with the minutes, Mr. Morgan, as vice president of the company, and Mr. Tennyson, as secretary, prepared and executed a conveyance of all the property, personal and real, of the corporation; but, instead of conveying it to Waggoner and Greene, conveyed it to Greene alone. This instrument reads as follows:
1 Packard truck, complete with trailer;
1 Rotary rig, complete with drill pipe and boiler;
1 Rotary rig, dismantled;
3 Standard rigs, complete, with all extra and fishing tools, boilers, and other equipment;
3 Strings big hole pipe, each string approximately 3000 feet in length;
1 Jones roadster automobile;
1 Buick 5 passenger automobile;
Waggoner denied making the oral agreement, in so far as he was concerned, evidenced by the minutes. Morgan and Ferguson testified positively to the agreement shown in the minutes.
The case was submitted to a jury, and the jury found, in response to special issues, that Waggoner did agree at the directors' meeting that he would take over the corporation assets along with Greene and pay the corporation's debts; but that, before the execution of the instrument conveying the property of the corporation to Greene, Waggoner told the latter, and also Morgan and Tennyson, the vice president and secretary respectively of the corporation, that he would not take over the corporation assets and agree to pay its debts. In other words, the jury found that Waggoner informed the officers and directors named, after the adjournment of the directors' meeting, but prior to the date of the transfer of the property to Greene, that he (Waggoner) would not go into the deal with Greene, and would not take over the assets and agree to pay the debts of the Burk-Waggoner Oil Company. Morgan denied that Waggoner made any such statement to him, but did say that the latter requested him to have the conveyance made to Clois L. Greene, instead of to both Greene and Waggoner, and that for this reason alone the conveyance was made to Greene instead of to Greene and Waggoner.
Upon the verdict of the jury, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of the Herring-Showers Lumber Company and against the Oil Company and Waggoner. The suit was dismissed as to Greene, who had previously been adjudged a bankrupt. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
Against the oral contract of assumption evidenced by the record, Waggoner urged the statute of frauds. The Court of Civil Appeals overruled the contention, saying:
But for the fact that the contract of assumption on the part of Waggoner and Greene embraced real estate, we would be in accord with this holding.
The agreement of one party with another to pay the debts of the latter to a third party, upon a valuable consideration, is not within, and therefore not prohibited by, the statute of frauds (Rev. St. 1925, art. 3995). Bank of Garvin v. Freeman, 107 Tex. 523, 181 S. W. 187; Spann v. Cochran, 63 Tex. 243; Turnbow Lumber Co. v. Eastham (Tex. Civ. App.) 221 S. W. 667; Mullin v. Nash-El Paso Motor Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 250 S. W. 472; Atkinson v. Jackson Bros. (Tex. Civ. App.) 259 S. W. 280.
However, the contract involved in the instant case is not a simple contract of assumption upon a valuable consideration. The consideration moving from the corporation to Waggoner and Greene was not only the transfer of the personal property of the corporation, but the conveyance of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tigrett v. Pointer
...the assets are devoted to the payment of corporate debts, without preferring one creditor over another. Waggoner v. Herring-Showers Lumber Co., 120 Tex. 605, 40 S.W.2d 1, 5 (1931); Cf. Allied Chemical Corp. v. Randall, 321 F.2d 320, 323 (7th Cir. 1963) (transfer of assets of insolvent corpo......
-
Mortgageamerica Corp., In re
...Trustees, supra note 2, 510 S.W.2d at 312-13. Although the action is usually brought by creditors, see, e.g., Waggoner, supra note 2, 120 Tex. at 614-15, 40 S.W.2d at 5, there is nothing in the Texas cases to suggest that a shareholder could not also bring the suit. A Texas court has even h......
- Lasky v. Rudman
-
Aetna Insurance Company v. Eisenberg
...S.W. 198); or where the court did not sustain appellant's position (e. g., Fish v. First Nat. Bank, supra; Waggoner v. Herring Showers Lumber Co., 1931, 120 Tex. 605, 40 S.W.2d 1). It is the claim of Aetna that there is no estoppel in this case, that the lower court did not find an estoppel......