Williams v. Ford

• Decision Date: 26 September 1894
• Citation: 27 S.W. 723
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. FORD et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 723

27 S.W. 723

WILLIAMS v. FORD et al.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

September 26, 1894.

Appeal from McLennan county court; W. H. Jenkins, Judge.

Action on contract by Eugene Williams against Dan Ford and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Wm. W. Evans, for appellant. L. W. Campbell, for appellee T. M. Maddin.

COLLARD, J.

The evidence on the trial was conflicting and contradictory upon the main issue in the case, — whether or not the contract declared on by the plaintiff was made by him and defendant Maddin. The judge who tried the case decided that the minds of the parties did not meet, which was equivalent to a finding that the contract was not made. There was testimony supporting and consistent with the conclusion arrived at by the court. In such case, as has often been decided by courts of last resort in this state, the appellate court should not disturb the verdict, whether found by the judge or the jury. The testimony of plaintiff tends strongly to establish the contract, and it is supported by collateral facts, but that of the defendant Maddin is positive that no such contract was made. Under the rules, we do not feel authorized to disturb the finding of the court. Railway Co. v. Dawson, 62 Tex. 261; Patton v. Gregory, 21 Tex. 514; Reeves v. Roberts, 62 Tex. 550; Floyd v. Rice, 28 Tex. 342; Stroud v. Springfield, Id. 676; Maverick v. Maury, 79 Tex. 443, 444, 15 S. W. 686; Railway Co. v. Lee, 69 Tex. 560, 7 S. W. 324.

We do not think the fact that plaintiff agreed to and did pay the expenses of defendant Maddin, and a certain amount agreed upon for his services, subrogated the plaintiff to fees allowed the officer for his services. Nor do we think there would be a resulting trust in favor of plaintiff for the amount advanced defendant on account of such services. The authorities cited by plaintiff on this point do not sustain the contention. Steamship Co. v. Young, 89 Pa. St. 186; Hallman v. Campbell, 57 Tex. 54; 19 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 537. Plaintiff cannot recover the fees due the officer upon the ground that defendant Maddin was his servant, and that, therefore, plaintiff would be entitled to his earnings.

It has been held by the supreme court of this state that it is contrary to public policy for a public officer to assign or give a lien upon his salary or fees, and that such assignment or lien is void. Bank v. Fink (Tex. Sup.) 24 S. W. 256. Following this case, it must be held that the...