*1
(Tex
REPORTER
WESTERN
297 SOUTH
Allegation
which
record
in the
business
no error
6. Fraud
find
We
<©=47—
obliga-
bought by plaintiff
judgment.
loss
suffered'
It follows
quires
reversal
goods;
“under
to redeem inferior
sold
tion
guaranty,”
affirmed,
judgment
should
be
held insufficient.
ordered.
has been so
damages
sale
for fraudulent
In
for
action
Affirmed.
resulting
business, allegation
obligation
to
of a
loss
goods, sold
redeem inferior
to
support
guaranty,”
“under
held insufficient to
damages.
for
verdict
8944.)*
(No.
KRUEGER.
al. v.
BLOHM et
Damages <$=>87(2)
judgment
ac-
for
7.
—Where
damages
unsupported,
ex-
tual
for
Appeals
Galveston.
of Texas.
of Civil
Court
damages
emplary
stand.
cannot
May 10, 1927.
judgment
damages,
for
for ex-
In action
30,
Rehearing
1927.
Denied June
emplary damages
cannot stand where
damages
unsupported.
for actual
another
cause to
1. Venue t©=>4i—Transfer
not transfer
county
<$=>115(3) Argument
plea
one
did
to
defendant
Trial
8.
—
plea
whose
defendants
improper.
other
as to
cause
limitation was unethical held
(Rev.
art.
St.
was overruled
damages
In action for
for
sale
fraudulent
1995).
of a
pleas
business which
had entered
defendants
sale,
damages
argument
fraudulent
limitation,,
indicating
for
for
action
In
county
plea
improper.
to another
of cause
transfer
was not ethical held
jurisdiction
to
not draw
did
defendant
plea
county
privilege
<©=>II5(I) Argument
opponent’s
whose
9. Trial
as to
defendants
—
separately overruled,
objections
view
overruled nine times
out
improper.
1995.
of ten held
art.
St.
Rev.
Argument referring
to fact that
suing
sale
opposite party
<$=>49
for fraudulent
of
times out of ten held
2. Fraud
had been overruled nine
—One
plead
prove
required
facts show-
improper,
to
held
ing
since such mat-
damages
was entitled.
jury’s
which he
reaching
ter was not for
to
consideration in
'
damages
verdict.
sale
fraudulent
for
for
action
In
demanded
defendant
in which
of a business
particularization
cumbent
<$=>125(4)
damages,
10. Trial
for
action
—In
plaintiff’s injury,
it was
argument
referring to wealth of defendants
prove
plead
facts
to
improper.
held
necessary
he
en-
amount which was
to
damages
In
for
action
for fraudulent sale
titled.
argument
business,
repeatedly referring
of a
to wealth of one of defendants
Allegation
buyer
his business
of busi-
Fraud
3.
<©=>49—
improper.
associates -held
damages
seeking
for fraud
au-
held
ness
paid.
proof
he
of what
thorize
Argument
opponents
11. Trial
<$=>124
—
damages
sale
fraudulent
for
for
action
In
were
employ attorneys
they
innocent men or
would not
paid
plaintiff’s allegation
of a
up
all
and down certain
specify-
business, without
for such
sum
certain
railway
proper.
between certain towns held
paid,
really
ing
particular
form
held
in what
Argument by plaintiff’s counsel that de-
let in
of what
sufficient
pay,
tain, company
fendants were not innocent men or
proved
in cer-
of stock
he shares
which
employ attorneys
up
not
railway
all
and down certain
promissory notes of himself
improper,
between certain
towns
held
another.
especially
any
unsupported by
where statement was
obviously
evidence and
erroneous.
seeking
Buyer of business
Fraud
4.
<©=>57—
damages
must show rea-
fraudulent
sale
for
Appeal
and error <©=>1031
action
—In
given
value of stock and
sonable market
note
argument
ig-
practically
for
fraudulent
exchange
business.
for
noring special
issues, giving
promi-
buyer
seeking damages
referring
nence to element of
Where
improper
sale had
for such business
fraudulent
defendant’s wealth held
for
with stock and
what
to extent
necessary
note,
presumed.
to show
will be
of stock and
reasonable market value
damages
action for
In
for fraudulent sale
charge
were,
view of
that measure of
note
damages
of a business
submitted were
in which
difference between reasonable
practically ignored,
and which
property parted
prop-
market
prominence to fact that suit
unflue
erty received.
for fraud and that
wealthy,
defendants were
reasonably
and so
held
calculated
Allegation
buyer claiming
5. Fraud <©=>47—
prejudice rights
of defendants that
will
as to
sale of business
“thousands
fraudulent
presumed.
support
loss” held
of dollars
insufficient
damages.
(I)
13. Trial
<©=>131
held
verdict
—Court
interpose
stop
on own initiative to'
damages
im-
action
fraudulent sale
proper argument
plaintiff’s counsel,
in ac-
business, allegation as
“thousands of
of a
dollars
business”
tion for
for fraudulent
sale.
loss incurred
, Where,
support
sale, plain-
in action for
insufficient to
fraudulent
verdict
held
argument practically
damages.
ignored
tiff’s counsel in
Key-Numbered Digests
topic
see same
and KEY-NUMBER in
other cases
Indexes
<©=For
jurisdiction
*Writ of
dismissed for want of
November
error
Waugh
for more
as
him to the
perpetrated
ants,
isted
ent claim for
findings
and, second,
lants’
cealed the
ruled like' individual
were insufficient
damages
appellants here,
causes of all three such
action unless and until cause of $13,000
lants
750 of
parties separately
duced to their ultimate
privilege
of
ery upon
firmed on
them, Waugh,
original
on
cern,
disposing
manded.
simply assert,
jurisdiction
Krueger, of
and defendants
County;
Tex.)
grounds,
having
themselves,
Peareson, Richmond,
Blohm
wealth,
Strickland,
ceptions
special issues,
that
Appellants
Action A. G.
M.W.
GRAVES,
Appeal
Bowers
special
own
Republic
county
found
and Ulrich
suit was
unethical,
as indeed was of this
of
the common
consisted, in
cases
having
it
and others.
length
and
initiative
theretofore
codefendants in
of fact
allowed.
Houston,
than
favor
filing
by
J.
sustained the
actual, and
of an
Hilliard,
of
appeals
by
from District
fraudulent
induced its
punitory
actual condition of the business
of his
B.
Bellville,
forms the
of
and all
indicated
*2
*
J.
that the
over them in
Tire
for
entered
members of this
assail the
them,
it
defendant.
Price, Judge.
records, briefs,
Bowers,
first,
such a
Krueger
court at
of
no
but had also'
Amarillo,
et
Pursuant
by
to entail
appeal.
original
Krueger against
Company,
wa?
appellee
to this
residence
Tex.;
misrepresented
and to
al.
theory throughout
jurisdiction
general effect,
of
had
support
worth,
recovery.
was that each of the
sustained the
sued Harris
Judgment
these orders were
sole basis for the
$6,250 exemplary
salé
herein
way
pleas
entitled to be sued in
referred
Caldwell,
purchase by appellee
effect, however,
preceding
plea
court, judgment
of
appellee.
Krueger,
awaiting
to a
inescapable
prominence
original
court,
Waugh,
Reversed-
codefendant with
by
plea
stated
and Peareson &
appellants.
as
and to
Court,
Caldwell,
separately
court’s
consequence
either class
them to
court had
fraud
against appel-
to also entitle
litigation,
corporate
damages $6,-
jury’s
tribunal;-
to defendant’s thereon,
and evidence
for
of
interpose
to have ex-
BLOHM v. KRUEGER
and C. G.
arguments to Fannin
terms
formal
additional
this same
the latter
have
George
codefend
of
and
on
limitation
Burleson
plaintiff,
reported
opinions damages
plea
charged
and
county,
verdict
him
drudg-
to fact
appel-
—
many
these
those for the
Riley
—for
pres
over
been
con-
con-
lost
(297 5.W.)
W.
re- of
ex-
af
r;e-
of
on
E.
in the
through
cent,
Eirst,
ty;
worth at
which
of
lants
all of
having
below the
above
on
between its
flowed from the
statement had
appear
gust 30, 1920,
statements
injury,
after
Burleson
it did not reflect
ferred to.
Houston;
curred when
worth of inferior
cover the
had sold under the same
restocked
tentional
statement
to the
discount sale
swindling him,
lants, too;
federated
transfer to Harris
fraudulent
averred that
enterprise
cussion.
1995);
assets and stock
dividually
drew the
jurisdiction is
we
application before,
Further
The count for
The second
Since the suit was
as
its
detail
September 20,
business in
defendants as
think,
it,
third,
for- rescission
stock
discount
damages;
which
liabilities
stock
it moved
by
resulting
thereby
to redeem
general
purpose
controversy. Appellee particularly
under
falsity
thousands
represented value in these
jurisdiction
county,
When
together
specified damages
of
on
special
shown to be answerable elsewhere
verbally
reflected,
overrides
charges
second,
being
representations
“that
goods
theory
actual and
its financial condition
hand than
which
presentment
just
conducted on Main
time
tires,
bplow
overruled without
Houston—
appellants
been
sum
losing
reliance
venue statute
over
Dallas
he is
some
that,
sum
during
represented
of
on
exemplary damages alleges
unconvinced of error in
company
as
many
aforesaid,
were sold under a
goods,
referred
to mislead
defrauding, cheating,
county
of
is inconsistent with
by
padded
hand —had
tubes, etc.,
thereof,
fact
of dollars of loss
losses had been
$30,500;
cost
reason' of
having
contrary
after
there as
exclusively
entitled to
$15,000.”
company
streets, in that
by
about
more as
June or
thousands
fraudulent
present plea
-including
on
sought
it.did
guaranty.
represented
presented to
or wholesale
over
combined and con-
as
reaches the
the infirmities re-
purchase
$18,000
the 33%
a certain
had more
these
made to
to,
so as to make
with a
claimed
a net worth
against Waugh
that he
$38,000
to what these
against appel-
him
(R.
which it
the false and
$12,600
have,
at a
and which
been with
this written
further dis-
a result
as
July,
statements
not worth
résumé
exemplary
one to re-
of dollars
dated
difference
S. article
street, in
its
view and
by appel-
sale,
respects:
incurred
recovery
reduced
guaran-
its real
written
in that
values,
$48,500
bought
him in
merits
worth
price,
goods
going
more
cent,
city,
and,
had
Au-
pet
in-
its
in-
of
WESTERN REPORTER
297 SOUTH
(cid:127)not
ically just
he
was
what
dence showed that
Company
ance
had
was
W.
Rep. 772,
loss
out
essary
our
tion and worth
entitled.
ticularization
authorities.
sides and
the difference between
value on
mated,
of the
appellee
and
resulted
sale,
entitled
misrepresented
pleaded
at the 33%
property
ants.”
any
must
and
ed
opposite
terial
(Tex.
general
able to the
to
ment
sole
appellee’s pleadings
ingly,
stead
dence
state
“The
This accords
The court
Neither
[3,
In our
The
[2]
with,
have
applicability
necessity
shares
specifying what
appellant
of the
Supreme
paid,
4] We
been,
inducement
$6,250
hence
upon
be
Had the action
of the
Civ.
respects
no
to sustain this
evidence,
measure of
averment
resulted in
and the reasonable
consequence
by him,
damages
8 L. R.
eliminated.
here.
really
which he received
to
party having
the sale
mere matters
show the
George Hesse,
attempt
do the
monetary
opinion,
was sufficient to
others,
injured;
how much
App.)
appellee
think
exemplary,
charged
$18,000
to
the
Ann. Cas.
property
buyer
and
Court
stock
the
Blolnn
both
have
what
of the
have
to
plead
with
cent,
for the
pleading
representation
item as
A.
except
business
it was incumbent
that the trade
pleadings
were
and
promissory
objections
be,
appellee’s allegation
what
a
having
pay;
actual
there
amount which he was
upon
and
by special
lias
(N. S.)
to
it had
but,
been
been
damage
loss to the
and
of the
think.
discount'
and
elicited
which the
and what
been
fixed
purchase
nullification,
the Hesse
particular
finding
$15,000
that
jury
demanded the
sustained:
$36,000;
that a
and
questioned by
rule
since the
prove
was sufficient
performed
damages,
made,
market
fraudulent
from this
reasonable market
been made
Caldwell Oil
100 Tex.
before
been
basis for
nor
parted
the
Medley
let
at
company,
confined accord-
undisputed
alone is
the
note of himself
the
declared
proving
findings
was found
laid down
tire
had
proof
claimed.
$6,750
that
justified
matters
rescission,
fraudulently just
123
would
special
the defend- prejudicial,
form that
stated,
the actual
Case,
under the
sufficiency
and cited
the condi there is
with was
facts
detail
upon the
company, Recurring
44,
been the
v. Lamb
contract
Am. St.
consum-
on both
damage
no
induce- value
sustain
any,
sought
in ma
specif
actual
would
favor-
with
upon.
part-
have of
Mill
thus
par
reli
nec
evi
loss
evi-
not
he that
these
years,
their
money say now,
The law conferred the
failed to
necessary to set it out here in
its more
Houston
might
which were not in evidence before the
permitted
App. 105,
in
tion.
detail,
many goods
means afforded on
in this action for
to
his
thiat
appellee
company’s
as
that
dence tended
here,
only sought
Civ.
250,
either.
curred in the
proof
incurred
to have
deem
price; consequently,
Main
accordingly,
generally charged
(Tex.
verdict:
proof
the trade was
satisfied with
feature;
essary
is
matter in
upon
court’s
[8]
For
[7]
[6]
[5]
cited; Flannery
go
not deemed
“confessions
appellee
loss from the fraud had
73 S. W.
contained in the answers of
App.)
the written statement furnished to the
what
the most
“Defendants after
exercise
Civ.
the state
2. As concerns
It follows that the
inferior
litigants,
that must have
further and show what the extent of
another reason the
street” consisted of or amounted
have been
you ought
amount.
to show what
quoted charge,
practice,
likewise
Thouron
resulted
It referred to the
objectionable
do.
did not
furnishes
There is
122 S. W.
in view of a
to stand. The
App.)
exemplary damages
detail.
real condition at that
264 W.
to be
it, too,
which it could
to the items
stock and note
to show that some
1072;
the state of the
goods
plainly
consummated,
unsupported,
and such
S.
pellee. ordinary employment. course Fourth, by plaintiff sustained brought LANE, by ordinary J. suit This William was the result of the risks of em- Gulf, Wright, Jr., ployment. Fifth, plaintiff by D. Colorado reason of Railway Company damages injury damages plaintiff Santa Fé to r.ecover suffered in the sum of personal injuries Sixth, guilty suffered which he that the was not con- alleged of said negligence tributory negligence receiving caused reason of the the wire from company. railway storekeeper handling or in it afterward. plaintiff alleged jury For cause of action the The verdict of the was returned into years age; day October, at the time IS court the 31st 1924. On the counsel for the employ railway .November, 1924, that he inwas com- 18th pany; asking and that in the course of his duties as filed his motion to re- employee he was instructed the fore- fuse the rendition of a in favor of de- charge being performed man jury work to fendant the verdict of the and order a go get company, mistrial, to the storeroom of the in that the answers of the storekeeper piece copper thereof No. 16 several issues submitted were inconsistent wire, straighten bring thereby the same and extent as to confuse court and