Yeakley v. Gaston
| Decision Date | 25 April 1908 |
| Parties | YEAKLEY v. GASTON. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Montague County.
Action by G. W. Yeakley against J. L. Gaston. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Graham & Williams and H. F. Weldon, for appellant. John Speer and J. M. Chambers, for appellee.
The case is sufficiently stated in the court's findings of fact which we adopt.
The first assignment submitted in the brief reads: "Because the court erred in rendering judgment for defendant, and in not rendering judgment for the plaintiff, as prayed for on the findings of fact found by the court and filed herein." This assignment is objected to for being too general, in support of which the following cases are cited: Tudor v. Hodges, 71 Tex. 392, 9 S. W. 443, and Bayne v. Denny, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 435, 52 S. W. 983—to which may be added Wright v. Wren (Tex.) 16 S. W. 996. It is difficult to see how it could have been made more general; and it is also difficult to see how we are to consider it without disregarding, not only rule 31, but the statute itself (Rev. St. 1895, art. 1018), which declares that an error so assigned shall be considered as waived, to say nothing of the decisions above referred to, in which similar assignments were held to be bad. But, in view of more recent rulings of the Supreme Court on this subject, we have concluded not to place our decision alone upon the insufficiency of the assignment. The court's findings of fact, though not so explicit as they might be, admit of the construction, we think, that Dr. Gaston did not undertake to sell to Dr. Yeakley his good will, but only agreed to sell his residence, his patronage of certain corporations, and to introduce Dr. Yeakley to his patients. This he did and moved away from Bowie, where both had up to this time been engaged in the practice of medicine. He was not, therefore, precluded from returning to Bowie and resuming his practice; the good will not having been sold and no agreement having been entered into that he would not return, although it was contemplated by both parties at the time the trade was made that he would not do so. In the conclusions of law the court employed some language which seems to indicate that the view was entertained that nothing short of an express agreement on the part of the appellee not to again resume the practice would be a bar to his doing so; but the authorities cited by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prahinski v. Prahinski
...in other professional practices. In Brown v. Benzinger, 118 Md. 29, 84 A. 79 (1912), we quoted with approval from Yeakley v. Gaston, 50 Tex.Civ.App. 405, 111 S.W. 768 (1908) where the court said, "the sale of goodwill by a professional carries with it the obligation that he will abstain fro......
-
Block v. Tarrant Wholesale Drug Co.
...on with the trial; Hamilton v. Bell, 37 Tex.Civ. App. 456, 84 S.W. 289; Mynatt v. Howard, Tex.Civ.App., 273 S.W. 276; Yeakley v. Gaston, 50 Tex.Civ.App. 405, 111 S.W. 768; Day v. Anderson, Tex.Civ.App., 62 S.W. 2d 201; Cross v. Texas Military College, Tex.Civ.App., 65 S.W.2d 794; Texas Co. ......
-
City of San Antonio v. Alamo Nat. Bank
...See Ackerman v. Huff, 71 Tex. 317, 9 S. W. 236; Watzlavzick v. Oppenheimer, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 306, 85 S. W. 855; Yeakley v. Gaston (Tex. Civ. App.) 111 S. W. 768; W. U. Tel. Co. v. Neel (Tex. Civ. App.) 35 S. W. 29; Logan v. Lennix, 40 Tex. Civ. App. 62, 88 S. W. 364; Wetz v. Wetz, 27 Tex. ......
-
Faust v. Rohr
... ... of the contract. Hoxie v. Chaney, 143 Mass. 592, 10 ... N.E. 713, 58 Am. Rep. 149; Yeakley v. Gaston, 50 ... Tex.Civ.App. 405, 111 S.W. 768; Dwight v. Hamilton, ... 113 Mass. 175. It is frankly conceded in their brief that ... "the ... ...