*1 REPORTER SOUTHWESTERN rеally represent “Bills, 587, did not Notes and title Article in tlie Rawlings Instruments,” prescribes: man” was some kind “straw Other Written regard parties note. “Assignors, to the transaction and said indorsers and other any primarily instruments liable The is affirmed. the trial court jointly sued named in this title principal obligors, alone in sued their provided the eases 1843.” articles ported to and fact that paid admitted thing indorsements on paid is that the other the note applicable conclusions of testified that fect note, ment tion of C. C. B. for extension al and knew The third aid of several months after land, that on the date of December Slaughter ostensible and of the statements sent ter, Slaughter representing ter, of W. manner conditionally Morton, regard Though Morton, Slaughter, land, Dalhart since said case was we think he plaintiff note, by Coney Rawlings, of extension assertion informed the bank about Appellant’s sixth assignments nothing about the note, upon April deed B. Rawlings absolute, (we owner’ jury. signature guarantor, made this guarantor Coney Rawlings holder and owner of represent really without Slaughter. plaintiff, B.W. his made the transaction. records was real which deed delivered to shall entered Slaughter’s authority liable of the signature, 1911, upon inquiry attorneys, time, has, conveyed C. thereafter, referring merely C. note, owned the estate. Slaughter Rawlings, except trial Slaughter. the execution interest conveyance Slaughter, thе latter desired maker). Rawlings as to the directions of Dallam guaranty is uncondition- note, time of the and that W. note, statutes sued. overruled. record undisputed facts show knowledge or consent Rawlings, entitled to find as a First with O. C. assignment of error land did not know suits, is said note, Morton, but the same was Dig. court execution Slaughter, August 22, 1912, indicated he binding contract an еxtension particular ais The second Rawlings property to W. least, note, National as there him.” owner as the maker There are no mentioned was Rawlings, thought C. 0. “but that mean that W. county show to an exten- without payment agreement; the maker. B. that J. G. guarantor, Slaughter, testimony objection, placed been in what Slaugh- Slaugh Morton partiеs holder agree- repre- never never Bank piece ques- note, any- title ef- he B. of had 2. Brokers broker’s commission 1. .Brokers purchase through Purchaser, was informed it for the mit a 4. Action tort. 3. Brokers be owner and there is in ants, against action the owner that a straw cerned, notwithstanding on the contract was mission that defendant had the contract mission under a it was sold after the mission, that certain of the chased of one tiff the would sue inquire ward the covery to the transaction. aon was to to commission MADDEN et and Parties. Misjoinder —Demurrer. sion — sion-Evidence. on Contract. [Ed. Note.—For other through Parties any pei'son paid, real Where but In an The owner of In such brought Allegations admissible, sold commission, recovery against with an action of the defendants with the person one of April 19, 1916. On Motion for Duty and that that before real Rehearing, purchasers agent &wkey;>56(3)Liability eor Commis- <&wkey;85(l) &wkey;>50(l) <&wkey;82(l) the real “straw as the exclusive whose al. purchaser, the. in a stipulation agent, them for was informed a straw Inquire Dig. &wkey;82(l).] evidence while prior to the Dig. <&wkey;>50(l); so as to have led to the dis- far as tо whose attention straw Pjec. SHANE et broker’s action for for the sale of man,” joined — was that under the terms of of tort May 10, to defraud the paid, purchasers the owner on contract. —Pdeadinu — Misjoinder the commission would 766.] Commission Action acting thereunder, contract to recover Action eor Commis- man at the as to his attitude plaintiff’s wаrning to intended to the defendants man fraud, entitled to the com- that, xilaced stipulation that, and who after with an action its sale on a com- Texas. remaining to Purchaser. agent was 1916.) owner was sufficient to was to had been called had of the contract sale of the contract if the al. the method of Brokers, the broker was Actiоn, see contemplated called there- &wkey;>193(6)— Vendor against him given plain- for its — bound to Brokers, plaintiff plaintiff Causes defend- owner com- pur- sale per- the out to- he game cases ©s^For *2 SHANE MADDEN v. 909 Thompson tention of a H. R. Garnet and demurrer on misjoinder properly the ties and a causes of action property Love to the inter- overruled, as an element esting prospective purchasers them as par- objection against different expired same. This exclusive contract action involves complication day day to August, .1912, issues 9th on the 16th following, of October Madden deeded Parties, Cent. Note.—Eor other property to one L. M. who thereafter Pleading, Dig. &wkey;>92(3); Dig. immediately &wkey;> deeded. to Dig. 435, 494; Dig. Dec. §§ Thompson separate 193(6).] parcels. Immediately <&wkey;406(8)— after <&wkey;96(l) Pleading 6. PARTIES Misjoinder —Waiver. the defendants Love and misjoinder causes of ac- A Madden, began negotiations son to may waived. offering property, chase the first Parties, eases, $5,350 $5,000, &wkey;96(l);- offer of 169, 170; Dig. a later Dec. Pleading, Dig. <&wkey;>406(8).] accept agreed samе, provided to Company the Geo. R. Shane would be satis- Liability <S=»94 eor Commis- Brokers fied with reference to claim for commis- sion —Purchasers. offering to the sum $50 for had the exclusive Where amount would have to and was to be entitled the sale of expira- particu- after the if was sold his commission aas settlement of claim. This one whose attention tion of the contract lar trade was not made. agent during defendant, who was before the contract proper- Thompson’s connection of of defendants to the blood called the ty straw the right against they, through and a another defendant Love’s, cognizant tion of was thereafter finally purchased man, negotiatеd for and negotiations. Tuck, finally negotiat- where, property, and if even the broker’s purchased procured ed for and a deed from if he knew Madden, name, have known defendants were for purchasers, the defendants were not liable in $5,259, consideration of was done an action of tort the broker of Handy. testimony, his commission. mаn, conclusive that Tuck was a “straw” ] <©^>94. to sustain that Love and cognizant Motion for On before the deal closed. The found Presump- Findings this was done of de- tive —Consideration—Statute. art.-1985, the Court feating Under Rev. St. the Shane out of their com- presume the trial of court’s mission. evidence, if sustained company, Shane, one of the judgment. support the Thompson inquired that bought of her before &wkey;>934(2).] sold to some other and then resold commission, Day- Court; Grayson County Appeal from would she claim a Judge. Steed, ton B. “put- that she informed him if it were not a George R. Shane and others Action up job” she not make such claim. She Judgment Madden and others. J. W. also testified that thereafter she informed appeal. Af- plaintiffs, and defendants buy prop- Madden that intended re- firmed as to the defendant erty and, man, aid a “straw” the other defendants. versed would sue them she all for fraud Sherman, Wood, and John T. Wolfe & this, collusion. denied but the Denison, Suggs, appellants. Webb against him. Webb, Sherman, appellees. Company alleged The Shane elements of and fraud the above facts day HENDRICKS, On of Ju- J. the 15th n against Handy, Love, Thompspn, and Mad- George appointed ly, 1912, W. Madden J. den commission, scheme defraud Redwood agents responded resi- and the limited certain favora- time to sell city bly allegations upon every owned him the dence Denison, issue. It Grayson Tex., county, alleged: for the sum was also may agree $6,000, or such lower as he “That, are mistaken with reference cent, accept, upon per a 5 commission on legal right damages to their recover foregoing plea, they say property. selling price of then the total prop- the said stipulated also sold case the was erty the said J. W. for the sum of of the contract “to after $5,300, tract of that under the terms of said con- any person plaintiffs there- was called are entitled to their commission cent.,” etc.; prior per the sale to or associates while prior the deed from under this contract” the commission Tuck, the defendant Madden paid. During pendency the con- fully advised thаt informed and a “straw” man tract the real estate brokers called at- used for
<g=oFor
see same
other cases
and Indexes
SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER
pellees
Thompson,
Love
the
den
testimony
proposition
the
having
phase
liability,
in the transaction.
selling
veying
obligations
it
ed
the
latter’s benefit.
Madden
attempted,
real
contract.
was in
the
the
stigation
instructions of
it,
stripped,
tice
Tuck as to his
leveled
verted,
evidently,
der
also claimed
complied
would be
commission,
ceived
that Madden
the life of the
attention
erty,
stigated
warned
dy, Thompson,
case for
Assuming
[1]
[2-4] If
so
extent as to find
Love and
contractual
knowing
sale,
method
that he know of the
to show
Shane
facts
warned
benеfit of Love
ex
facts, exhibiting
the real beneficiaries
far
reduced
to an
case as
by Handy,
against
reality purchasing
him
knowledge
liability
contractu, averring
furthfer
before this
allegation
and notified
have led
however,
therewith.
Thompson,
is not
admissible as were
used for the
of Love and
as his
Love and
is
if Tuck had answered
interested
ordinary question,
and advised
County
and found
be used for that
that the
“straw” man was
that such
we
that the
that he was
independent
pay
contract,
owed the
contract,
allegations
only escape
fulfillment on-their
attitude to the
to Madden had been tried
in this case.
and was therefore
think,
knowledge extended,
upon
specially
to the
straight
he is
a commission.
with the
that
was the
transaction
joinder,
Thompson,
approved by
sufficient
Shane
that, applicable
jury having
Madden denied
purchase
that a
under
sufficiently
that such a “straw”
the
conspiracy;
did
Tuck,
discovery
solely, upon
part,
innocent;
circumlocution
subterfuge
proving
were
Thompson.
Company,
therein,
of contrаct.
efficient cause
warning
Tuck at the
admitted in this
Shane
not
this
jury,
to sustain
compliance
We
to
purchase,
contemplated,
“straw” man
often
was intended
agent procur
who
the
occurred
‘property
consequently
participants
beating
building
purchasing
know
stated,
.under the
conditions,
inquire
under the
Love and in
It is true
that Han
think
waived,
рurchase, Madden’s
the same
under
we
part, the
the
that he commission. When
to Mad
as con-
but
for the
Hence,
contro
an ac
during
in or
truth,
have,
prop Love,
Tuck
upon
were
that
that
con-
the
the
the nature of
ap- property
the
the
no
in
in
is,
to and
of in
proposition,
on
leged
pany
purchasers.
Ave.
rect,
these
vinces us
waived.
known,
on
as a
The
three
son,
interfered' with
is
reversal.
inis
tured, provided
some of
An element
against
upon
the
the
121 N.
injury
der of
reasonable
of
extends further to
of action
finding, they surreptitiously a cause of
cerned.
ed,
different
complication
one cause of action is’
character of
against
question misjoinder
cаn see
Co.,
A careful
[5,
that condition.
vigorously
Madden’s
injury
allegations
ground misjoinder,
can be held.
Thompson.
authorities are unanimous
prejudice
there
but,
6]
never consummated
Lohmiller
Legally
if a court
against
defendants, Handy, Love,
appellees
Y.
pleading
with one of
whatever
Wis.
The above authorities
that Love and
Co.,
him. Demurrers
and Madden’s
no cause of action
ex contractu
If
on account of
Upon
causes
were
that in
for the
contract,
Ordinarily
Thompson.
could occur.
exception
there
but
interference with
nature
action in
defendants,
24 N.
no
liability.
this
perusal
the
insisted
Numerous
we do not
Shane
overruled
proof
App.
the
a contract. The
we
issues,
of action is
tried,
overrules
Of
remaining defendants,
the main