*1 y. BELT BOWLES place, known geon’s never no In bridge have construed the assignments issue. to danger. instructed tiff.” must pensation where soundness quired v.” pleadings ities ready purchased tion for distinguish tion used limb”—and the Tex. Ry. Trunk utory negligence, Webster’s charges the to do so is Ry. child, having basis W. bought arrived ments of error attack the $75 McCrummen, on the measure date court with C. [2] [3] Washington, Worth, give 684; 1058; M., thirteenth amputating child until issue, v. each, Co. reasonable entitled the court erred evidence 52, are Appellant’s Taylor, Appellant’s It the act of give fees and the and it was Hall, 971; Ry. The issue conditions Mathis some artificial place requested charge upon In necessary nursing v. cured. This 40 S. reasonable, St. abundant from purchase save 107 W. Dictionary, which is: “A heal urged it' the first McGlamory, in the record that these amounts Co. v. this, also, “just warning complain Ft. Worth L. & S. W. reversible error. to an affirmative 133 W. had paragraph paragraph of K. & charge. from cured,” S. discloses that we think W. jury age Case the the child’s limb. The court himself jury and which he under second, sixth and wound; S. and only Ayres, her evidence, 956; healing; expense paid for which he had charge otherwise. T. in the future until she of 21 the word “cured.” had just, 958; could not the facts clearly reasonable Ry. limb tlie appellant known to charging Appellee the fifth limbs 355; 899; & D. C. definition R. from the 89 Tex. 85 W. Byrd St. Louis artificial the court’s defense 83 Tex. third, and fourth danger give the issue strained they contends years. gave of artificial limbs. Co. negligent Co. and attention Ft. Worth & D. is therefore S. amputated, jump seventh heal charge restoration failure of to Dr. G. H. S. A. & & G. H. raised to allow v. M., v. Case, charge proper main could allow rise Ry. charge reasonably county a wounded Rogers, 639, of contrib under 269, 18 S. compensa Kern, 786; from limbs al There is construc collision. & S. K. of three jury author measure of failure failure Hamm 534. assign charge supra, Co. ment.” be re plain- complaint 35 S. & T. com paid sur the of this W. As no 91 manded. 1. A. ruled. cial not err assignments are pressly erly should not take into fered. There is sufficient grantor, D. abstracted 2. tal. reasonable deed and a chase-money the time a creditor creditor of and plaintiff 3. controversy, purchaser to as of error that ed deed counterclaim, ant’s subject (Court the record of the situated, Deed—Notice. Unrecorded [Ed. Note.—For quiry. [Ed. We Because [5] Judgment Judgment Notice base they might affect them with Where the Whatever As Where, that there anguish notes. instruction to the effect D. June derived Dig. Note.—For other eighth, think the court’s case reserving between refused conveyance are without creditor before jury BOWLES which the or creditor on §§ hearing, eleventh refusing §§ subsequent judgment lien of the transfer 6*)—Facts ain as tenant of damages burden is to enter such notes transferred (§ 527*)—Effect—'“Final and the court (§ 788*)—'Transcript—Filing— bo reversed, (§ 788*) found had 1913. On Motion was no evidence ninth, Deed—Notice. person evidence, was not notice to require a reversal. every the holder sufficient to presumed therefore during abstracted charge, other 1369; been no holding judgment against vendor’s lien to the business referred to in 1369; Oct. the court it. assignment errors v. BELT et al. facts consideration and action, element eases, merit, remittitur, on the record of the D., had cases, to the or at the time of the of Texas. Amarillo. Lien Unrecorded and the cause the holder of the Dec. the oral tenth correct, and to have accounting the notes so as charge Putting lien. overruled. pointed of an favor put 1913.) trying defendant filed a located, Dig. refused — and are raised see see the court to that of the of error of such facts no proceeds for Re Notice, assignments an unrecord- another, the land secure learned unrecorded remaining subsequent of land Judgment, Judgment, argument the cause out, 788.*] sufficient the ten- 788.*] Judg error over- men jury is a pur- spe suf did In un- on Dig. Key-No. & Rep’r *For other cases see same and section NUMBERin Dec. Series Indexes *2 886 159 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER question the ages, Tex., county, of dam- and that the trict court of Lubbock for any, alleged by defendant, as was not cent, $702, per interest; sum of with 6 part question a determined in a of the suit to be and would be 11, 1910, judg- on June abstract this suit between defendant and filed, recorded, corporation, ment was and indexed in wherefore against county. under the judgment defendant as to records of said judgment cause, facts and Dillard, judgment, in of Holt ease reciting that “all as matters of fact” as well appeal was affirmed on Civ- having etc., court, of law been to the il it was of the Second Judicial law adjudicated and therefore that District at Ft. Worth. After the return plaintiff be etc., $702, recover of defendant mandate execution regarded finally having as determined the 3, 1911, was issued on upon and levied November cross-action and was Judgment, block Dillard cases, [Ed. Note.—For other see Dig. 970; § 527.* property judgment to Faulk as the Phrases, definitions, For other see AVordsand debtor, pur- J. J. and which was 3, pp. 8, p. vol. 7663.] vol. - 1911, 3, chased at execution Judgment 2S5*) 5. Let- appellant herein, Frank —Index—Initial who tebs. property. received a sheriff’s deed to said judgment Where an was al- The cause phabetically that provided statute, was tried the court without the as so at indexed any person inspection arrive could jury, assistance of a who rendered alpha- the names and defendant in in favor of the Belt his suit marginal order, letters initial and betical placed notes; for foreclosure of said vendor lien did not on the record for convenience the index. constitute the issue involved in cases, Judgment, question priority superiority other [Ed. Note.—For see 561; Dig. § 285.*] said vendor as ab- executed before the abstract abstract of owned however, notes from Dillard It Faulk was dexing consequently the of the record sarily that Mr. land to stracting judgment creditor, county his seven lien tenant at the time Holt ment; vendor’s who there was it when first heard the which was filed October stracted; his Belt 1912 and testifies that the sale from Dillard to made, sold the anything this matter he about acter, first deed of the vendor ed “As deed Mrs. gave Associate Justice Gaines of fixed possession was the is noted that Dillard, the after tenant, occupancy tenancy owner notice, a matter of attempts time that was from Dillard recorded, I required Boyd, years says: some and that of said vendor’s and, in Collum v. clerk. been abstracted Faulk, in order to lien notes place the name of until after the county Dillard the about recorded, information to placed Belt. The a deed on record.” the transfer at first when before on account sort some character “That deed father-in-law of creditor’s to do this the statement was at the time She asked me if Dillard had thereafter were not was: it, Faulk and was lien notes from Dillard to up said: “As to this lien judgment lien had attorned fact, I clerk informed Shackelford the first time conveyance, subsequently he fixed the deed time was to of the deed and and the deed was to the time of this I possession by postpone property lien on that held Faulk and the transfer I told it, I the Sanger conveyed Shackelford, property to trial Dillard think Mrs. of record. But she year he knew of thought against Dillard, abstracted as a 12, 1911. It is notice of this char- Faulk deed. and before placed his her I disremember. clerk, necessarily Shackelford, the the the creditor from Dillard to said she the statement of asserting of notice was filed. of the vendor’s the Men made after the and the Bros., *3 judgment lien, time that Belt, what lien was ab vendor’s lien conveyed when he Shackelford, some six didn’t know Dillard the a tenant is nothing of place and Boyd judgment heard of who was is neces cause also thought I aliunde cuting latter’s the ab record, record it was tenant began suit,” knew Belt. says, true lien was lien by the the the My the the lard, in or of holding and at the time the ance sufficient to those facts quent What facts would the lien unrecorded interest to have and continued he was clusions, Dillard for that ferred the the stract of record is his “was erty from Shackelford of his Dillard tenancy Shackelford land? That Dillard ever when he W. Shackelford thorities lien notes to that Belt at upon duty sisted of 105 tween being possession during the the owner find Paris Dillard to an unrecorded negotiated Shackelford Shackelford to an cogency knowledge property agent.” D. notes have learned in this instance from Dillard for whoever it For Whatever simply Shackelford, Dillard purchaser land, tenancy according referable an any. indicates, Benson, the land for and as to testified: was the owner inquiry. Appellee however, holding matter, for this Grocery learned whom debtor, attaching inquiry Benson made notice to proposition note devoid of and conclusions property personally Faulk, who, in did not know affect Shackelford holding Justice Williams said at of the land Faulk, or Belt, the sale of the time to reside this cause the time was Shackelford as to and before or creditor he made and that position, the Co. v. “Mr. Shackelford conveyance; necessarily of to sufficient to they them and which seems to Belt, through this cause executed abstracted lien was paid creditor and the holder belonged.” informed land, not sufficient Shackelford, Faulk, involved any whom duty never collected rent inquiry, tenant, subsequently Burks, there when time? The reasonable I also and we are unable the three vendor’s diligence so attornment made the transfer creditor, prior does the time intimation that any upon inquiry deed so inquiry attention far fixed; represented by or of he the to stated his knowledge shows: the condition put to this land. 101 Tex. a contest be circumstance the creditor: Dillard, far outstanding Faulk; the transfer These con was Benson as in the was made property; presumed testimony judgment any language to Faulk response he (Benson) and I trans was convey cite au the ab thereto impair prose subse of all of his really agent. what knew prop That was ease Dil the in he to SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER inquiries action “He to tile institute as the is not court in rights there is existence the cause of Holt v. Dillard (upon records, no evidence be unless which the abstract of predicated) some fact which he knows or should know anot If not sufficient to excite in the minds of a final of course it is fundamental prudent persons.” state, fails, It is settled that we ment quote regard appropriate affecting to matters policy that it is the to re- discus- question: involving day quire sion of that lands or interests “On this the transactions 7th June, placed public being regular therein to be and derive records term except therefrom; titles above-entitled came notice, on defendant, when the and came valuable con- involved, *4 person by attorneys, sideration, each in and and faith are and ready susceptible jury and announced titles not and a being registration, waived, and all the record matters title controls. The as well of foot being leading 185, as the Wheeler, court, of law case of Moran v. and court; having principle heard the ar- evidence and illuminates the —a gument counsel, is of where a fraudulent release of that the vendor plaintiff. law is with notes was of record the time a mort- Wherefore ordered, adjudged, gage placed land, and decreed and inno- court plaintiff, mortgagee, W.O. do and cent affected the status of the any only, recover of and from the J. record J. Dil- not of the lard, $702, outstanding of the sum of interest thereon *5 rendered, in under the facts cause.” the been but the accepted may preparation definitions of “One of the a in of which be deferred awarding judgment is ‘the the that it is with extension of time aft- accordance the judicial consequences adjournment granted by the law which attaches er the of court ” Winter, Legislature, writing facts.’ Land Loan Co. v. 93 in an embodiment of matters pre- W. 41. judge 57 S. which the trial found finality of liminary judg- pronouncement Of course it is essential his in the Holt v. Dillard the that ment and which the same was based. proceeding in that the cross-action If there was a recitation study disposed distinctly conclusion, of. finding -equivalent should have been A the indicates that set-off reference to “counterclaim” statute with which we found discern from conclusions separate instrument, by judge reconvention the trial in a adversary by actions the cross-ac- his declarations as to tion, comprehended in the suit indisputable cause is whenever that be we think it would “recovery brought is for the debt cause would be a final in * ** by judgment, bond, otherwise analysis bill or one; true, of this rec- if that be subject- pre to such limitations be (the conclusions with which ord by scribed judge) law.” Article of the Revised arewe able to of fact of the trial part Civil Statutes be- the record we think to as a look comes quite years, a number of recites that just a much where, upon issue, specific trial of the “if the de a if had been in cause as establish a demand fendant shall finding in contained recitation ment true whether trial plaintiff exceeding that established itself; we him the finding you court shall of the construe the judgment for render the defendant for such judge The or law. one of fact prescribed is law, excess” and article 1328 it says, “All well as of matters of in court;” that favor final whose and that the submitted to the which, is rendered shall his evidence, also recover costs unless in heard taken court connection ly appear fact, thorough- findings it that acquired trial should be made to the. with dispose counterclaim of the defendant was of the indicate that court did suit, pronounce- after the commencement of the in and the cross-action event, plaintiff in if establishes favor of the the of the ment existing cause of action defendant, of the plaintiff against suit, clearly minds, upon commencement of the shall latter to our costs suit recover his are disposing costs. These statu record, is of the court a declaration tory prescriptions with of' matter. ments issues character. Our authorities which state a line of We have shall, judge prescribes trial statute jury, under the issues where request parties, at the of either state them, ar- have been could not submitted rived writing the conclusions fact found finding another at without fact not separately law, him from the necessarily pressed included the ver- conclusions but the clerk and to to be filed with constitute dict, be rendered cause; and, found, positively of the and the ver- had been fact where the conclusions fact found ill cases kind a case is final verdict dict separately judge stated, disposing the “court involved. Pearce v. issues (Emphasis Bell, was an ac- 688. The case cited shall render thereon." ours.) debt, mortgages, (article This was amended in foreclosure of tion 1911) by allowing sulting general jufy Rev. Stat. verdict of the Civ. 159 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER S90 nothing pellee pose red to do not numerous cases particular as disclosed there court erence tory of an ity discriminations character. we are of the ing expedient policy cross-action that who deal with questioned by referring pleading recover ed, ous announcement record the clearly to the decision Fowlkes, recovery upon other, judication by 215, presents recovery, follows 691. that the lien pronouncement been another line of cient so as to not looking favor money; beyond a plaintiff upon light sues must Without same, some Davies v. connection think, its not decided mortgages, where the respect. and some Third. We thus reflected by appellee finality clerk to think constitute judgment. into the a final from that which upon a conflict between the disposition more instances it more supply more of law is: Shall the of tile and so improper lien itself but record doubt attempting here is final. case, the defendant Chief Thompson, expressly finding such other case in We are not with the judgments than a readily than one cause of action for an of could be cases in this them as in it but which other pleadings, then, mortgages with Chief Justice as well as on the for the abstract to demand hold, that, order do not Judge Denman, receive the marginal element of the same rule. Justice intendment, index itself upon it indexing go drawing Court held in that his contention might propound for a further than convenience attached to ascertain the jury’s purpose pleadings?” initial cause. The case rendered merely suggest *6 prima and whether or not was not entitled agree deciding discussion Roberts the record jury passed expressed, of Civil diligence silent in favor of issue. by injecting- of the index state, letters could be on that distinctions of the abstract account awards verdict disturbance Gaines, applied benefit one the name letters refer isit of the index face of it facie to interlocu- verdict, the record necessarily debt. foreclosing Rackley that those illustrated says: as to the ascertain- pleadings, note, with ref There Appeals, manifest a 21 Tex. In this an viewed of this action refers previ- vital- liens pur face case and R. defi- think “By and the ap cit- ad- in- of ed until after the be is- to be dor’s legal consideration reference nature tion, not. vendor’s deed and character parties) the same equitable a lack ests, when, a this state of the unrecorded before the realty by tinguished prevail recorded existed course of that land in other cases cited action, Tex. 260. it is ordered Frank upon which the statute costs ruled the the state trial against ed that the volved the here seems ranged er stantial conclusions [6] The careful index, registration, the vendor’s contravened equitable partial recover of the upon inspection lien, although executed, overlooked, interest of a in appellee, through extent (being out under the On was intended to be controversy susceptible nor compliance recognized registration of lien is to interests virtue principle which, Shackelford, upon higher reading sale. as to appellant, from a contractual mortgage, the case of Senter v. rendition of this cause. necessarily require Motion think, properly arranged many and the defendant. The index is not shown to defendants, appeal. vendor’s lien that the deed favor of the case, W. G. or opinion, the transaction a this court that the in his motion for by us; of affirmed, by appellee The court held lien in this lien, it in insisting upon insists decades. statute, does not regarded, especially opposition of arrived penalty herein béen Naion, Frank as of other susceptible Supreme Court, springing by lands not Belt claims his ven appellee pay priority said; registration.” Rehearing. original that we J. Supreme appellant, with alphabetically ar- the statute. rendered notes, facts, form lien where notice itself, reserved Geo. L. prescribe. exist. It is not lien was resultant O. C. Belt the J. or settled law of “The evidence further order- case that case that claimant of a found same, reality, between the the abstract Lambeth, of liens in- any person, lien, in which it contractual legal not record a valuable attaches to susceptible a reversal Dillard to and which announced doctrine is have over- rehearing, his cross- contradis bottomed operation names of Court of registra was do have Bowles, Beatty, all the would inter given index from with The sub- Our not We N. Tes.) McLANE PETTY warranty prevailed general judgment; real covenants of could not have Paulk complet- controversy, prior to title, being with his the vendee showing a the sale to deliver an abstract imputing notice to the lien good title, vendor was bound merchantable holder at the judgment; the latter abstracted his good title, to tender could good by compel itations accept lim- the vendee to a title and, unrecord- if the only. off, why ed title would be cut not the holder [Ed. see Vendor Note.—For other dependent express lien, of an unrecorded 245-247; Purchaser, § Dec. §§ title, when it also neither record- 130.*] nor ed to the creditor Specific Condi Performance when the latter’s lien was fixed? It was the tions in Contracts —Effect. agreed A contract which the duty deed, of Belt virtue convey by warranty real described deed certain of which he the vendor’s held pay agreed property, the vendee for which opposition claimant, the record or deposited in es- $3,200, had been which applied money, when he notice crow as earnest be on sale, price if it on consummation of Paulk or of the lien in deed vendor’s to be returned should not consummated order to eliminate the holder ¤ obligation, binding vendee, legal appellee, literature parties maintained have either of the damages; performance the earnest specific ability counsel, suit for the earnestness and money agreement presented luxuriance the rehearing, of authorities the deal failure to consummate returned on inapplicable which we think liquidated damages. being one for impel point, us to a reiteration Specific cases, see Per [Ed. Note.—For other plain Dig. 181; principle formance, 59.*] what we deem to be a Spe law. (§ 49*) of Sale — 3. Brokers —Contract— to Commis again vigorously cific Performance Risht insists we sions. overruled numerous decisions a sale of a failure consummate Where Appeals, Courts and some decisions property negotiated caus- broker real default, solely by and his announced the ed performance compel specific finality complete the vendee he tendered moment express account of the lack of a literal and property, and the vendee record title to finding against price buy recitation jected a cross-action in- willing able, ready, was specified, and was entitled completed his services broker into case and which became to commissions. necessary to be reviewed in this record. Brokers, cases, see Every involving decision cited affirmative, adverse action was reviewed *7 63*) Commissions—Comple 4. Brokers — original us, mentioned in our Default —Effect. tion of Sale —Vendor’s opinion; and we believe are not con- sale of certain for Where broker valid, property procured con- enforceable spirit flict, principles real even with the willing take purchaser able from a tract Supreme Court, announced and we specified, the terms thought then and now that at- convey he could vendor refused to furnish tempted systematic analysis small concep- to a limitations 'property, strip the vendee would higher tions of the and im- agreed orally accept, the broker plied holdings, impractica- in these would be com- be liable for should not that missions the vendor indulgence ble; legal and that an dialec- consummated the sale was unless commissions. broker’s defense to the tics with an almost no interminable review of Brokers, cases, see Appeals numerous Court Civil deci- sions, upon judgments, the matter of final would be useless unavailable. County Appeal Civil Court for Bexar particular We insist that Clark, Judge. . Cases; H. John herein, viewed giving with the D. McLane John Action exposition meaning of said Petty. passed upon by has never been appeals. rendered. Reversed and Appeals, of strengthens, Civil and a review of Fitzhugh, Harris, M. and McCol- O. C. C. rather than diminish- appel- Antonio, Burnett, San lum es, subject, our convictions on this lant. rehearing motion is overruled. TALIAFERRO, an action J. This was commission, have been earned claimed to for by find- broker real estate McLANE v. PETTY. purchaser piece ing belonging for a of real estate (Court of Texas. San Anto- appellee. Rehearing nio. June De- 15, 1913.) nied Oct. Conclusions of Fact. AND PURCHASER 1.VENDOR —CON — TRACT Merchantable Title Limita "engaged Appellant, the real tions. Antonio, approached in San estate business appellee Where contract for sale of real convey by
erty sale of the the vendor to deed with Dig. Key-No. Rep’r Indexes, & cases *For other section in Dec. Series NUMBER notes stract of Rehearing. recorded indexed for On Motion and under which the de- Bowles —Lien—Deed—Failure raigns title. LIEN. TO RECORD—VENDOR’S equitable lien, The rule that Holt, The district court C. found that W. property by virtue of a real attaches to which sale who was the creditor the other thereof, prevail cause, against in which rendered the unrecorded lien where apply given before sale does not $702, lien has been Dillard the sum of had no- expressed and a contractual vendor’s tice, when he abstracted his against a deed as in an unrecorded reserved Belt’s vendor’s lien for the reason grantor whose creditor convey- then in notice of the is recorded before ment ance. Shackelford, Judgment, see Faulk, tenant the vendee the deed from 1368, 1369 Dec. Dillard; the vendor lien notes Appeal Court, Lubbock from District reserved deed. Judge. Spencer, County; W. R. [1] First. It is now law of the settled Frank and O. C. Action between Bowles state that the holder of a unrecorded From a favor Belt and others. debtor, against deed from a whom a appeals. latter, Reversed former rendered, ment has been is required to part. part, affirmed judgment creditor at the Lubbock, appellant. Klettj or before & Bean attaching lien. There Bledsoe, W. H. both of D. Benson and uncertainty to be some seems appellees. confusion Lubbock, proof upon with reference to burden HENDRICKS, notice as holder J. This cause arose conveyance of an unrecorded May 18, 1910, and a subse Dillard On J. J. follows: quent judgment 236, creditor who has abstracted block town owner upon his county, Tex., the record of the Lubbock, Lubbock conveyed situated; seeming land is un the same said date deed to N. certainty only, reason said deed the Su Frank preme Court, 18, 1910; the case of of the consid- Barnett June conveyance Squyres, 193, 241, 93 Tex. eration for 77 Am. Rep. 854, Cochran, St. Turner v. Faulk executed and delivered to 94 480, promissory 923, definitely vendor lien three notes for the the settled day proposition the burden is delivery conveyance the execution of the deed of (that is, unrecorded May 1910) impute J. J. Dillard and to sold notice to the transferred, writing, at the time before Belt, Floyce C. notes to written transfer O. lien. his v. T. J. See Johnnie Rule 16, 1910, Richards, for record June was filed S. W. decided county, May 17, yet Lubbock officially Records of Deed this court re ported, gives C. W. On June Holt recovered in which Chief Justice Huff summary J. J. Dillard in the dis- brief the conflict. Dig. see other cases and section Key-No. *For Rep’r NUMBER Dec. Series & Indexes BOWLES v. BELT sufficient ing tMs
Notes
[2] Upon we hold that a consideration support creditor, trial court’s testimony tile O. W. find in equivalent court.” Also of notice 324; Glendenning Woodson v. is the settled his landlord Collins. Bell,
notes the hands cent, per transferee, from date hereof at the rate of as per annum, lien; suit, and all costs of the vendor the latter for which not plaintiff may writing transferred and have execution.” not of record. logic plaintiff’s petition e., (i. We Case that Moran-Wheeler cause Rogers Houston, Dillard) the case of Holt is not in the record of this cause, Supreme we find from 60 W. also the conclusions judge, who tried that cause without contention jury plain- in evidence record that the that creditor should have in- quired Holt tiff and the defendant Dillard were J. Dillard. If the creditor had gone corporation engaged officers of a stract ab- he would have seen the business, evidently was in and who Dillard. In the latter were in case was conflicting corporation control of the business of involved said interests in land and agreement proof, the court found an also Court announced the burden Holt between proceeds principle directly and Dillard that derived from corporation go a the the should be divided found, however, abstract business of said further than them; record find if between he out transfer a ven- further plaintiff dor lien note had been made. We do Holt owned purpose think in set of abstract books in- of mak- Benson, dicates that Dillard abstracts of lots had told the town of Lubbock Belt’s agent, thereto; holding and the additions declared in that Shackelford and he further Eaulk, for he would have and that it that “the could be reasoned that fees Lubbock told the town lots should individually thing, plaintiff,” or would have informed him agreement effect, that he had also the land if he in- well proves agreement quired, imputed as another ab- fees of lands, lots, nothing stracts to character exclusive of this shown of case. There corporation. circumstance or Defendant pleaded judgment 'creditor, known cross-action alleging a written cite him contract that Dillard had sold the land, or that certain duties of Dillard would him to the inform corporation books Shackelford was the land and a for Eaulk. violation dealing obligations contract, If one for land would not have to in said inquire by that, if a note been sold further stated said cross-action apparent note, lots, holder of record of the as to the abstracts of the town he was it, when the record does not indicate unable to hold that Holt would we are entitled under contract the use of private professional to in- for his work quire land, charge, of Dillard if he had sold the without and that under said contract they corporation, for whom Shackelford was were to divide the fees earned entirely the record is when consistent with and that the fees for abstracts ownership belong Dillard’s town lots were suggestive circumstance, alleging a further breach said contract Holt, appellant’s such an to make We sustain with reference to the abstracts for the town propositions upon by plaintiff, depriving (Dillard) lots same, allegations matter. the cross-action, use appellant assigns germane question
[4] Second. The error to to the BELT BOWLES days adjournment finality ten are the ones court after the term of tlie out, “at which in conclusions of set a cause such be tried court we think prepare findings pleading averments. more extended contains fact cause further* found law in cases in that tried before the The trial court (Un- to the town lots when “The abstracts demand therefor.” as follows: made derscoring prepared ours.) and the work were record does not he indicate $702” whether the conclusions fact amounted —which plaintiff; belonged judge proceeding fur- and he law found ther found: accounting the trial in the the during has not mentioned “That filed term of court expired. obliga- and defendant or after the same had proceeds imposed upon judge derived from the tion render the trial Company Abstract business of Western the conclusions of fact and (the corporation), law of the amendment when alleged by during any, damages, the time, filed said conclusions term suit, giving his and is not amendment the court days adjournment ten in which after be a to be de- the term that same prepare findings defendant and the termined in suit between of fact Company, presupposes pre-existent and therefore conclusions of law Western Abstract find defendant as conclusions of fact and