*1 of and it can called fraud. JENKINS & CO. v. PEDEN IRON STEEL Corporations <@=269(2) 11. —Evidеnce—Ac- 336.) (No. et al. — against “Good tion Stockholders (Court Appeals Beaumont. Texas. of of Civil Faith.” May 1, April Rehearing Denied 1918. by against In stockholders action creditor Rehearing, May for 1918. On Second Motion alleged individually overvaluation reason of 1918.) secretary of an of ing the faith, esty ally es, lease in oil statements to state, surrounding Objection circumstances affect- <@=412 1. Triial —Waiver property, arriving at methods Evidence —Cross-Examination. valuation, were admissible to show as _ a If it was error for witness which, law, simply moans hon- as used in neighboring as a land oil certain to value of basis collusion, deceit; ; suit, fraud, without actu- fixing lands of oil for pretense (citing waived, without Words the same Phras- was Faith). cross-examination, Good covered was lands was of still other Appeal Court, from District Robertson brought out. County; Watson, Judge. John <§=142(4) Pacts —Val- 2. Evidence —Similar Action & Steel Peden Iron Com- Oil Lease. ue oe arriving oil a certain pany against In at E. G. Jenkins and others. proper time, at a certain it was lease Judgment defendants, new motion for adjoining the con- the value of a similar overruled, appeals. Af- trial improvements, regarding the ditions two etc., being alike, tyhat quality,' the ad- firmed. joining for under the lease could have been sold Baker, Botts, Garwood and J. Parker & existing conditions. Jr., Townes, Houston, C. all Bowers & Appeal <@=1050(1) 3. and Error —Harmless ' Bowers, Perry Woods, Caldwell, & Error —Evidence. stand that Where oil scouts admitted on Williams, Franklin, appellant. S. C- it could be sold an lease was worth oil Caldwell, Brenham, Searcy Botts, for, party soiling harmless, error, the other it was if to allow Morehead, Franklin, and W. C. Da- H. S. stock were show what leases and oil. locality time. for in the at the vis, Bryan, appellees. <@=501(7) Opinion Evidence- 4. Evidence — Opinion. (сid:127) Basis oe February 21, 1915, BROOKE, a J. About witness, testifying value of an A as flowing brought was in in oil properly time, allowed at a certain oil lease to state facts same opinion. concerning transactions in William- near the town of locality on which based his county, well was on land son Tex. The days belonging 'to one Fuchs. A few Fritz <@=151(1) Evidence of Oil 5. —Valuation brought flowing in on later another' Lease —Reasons. against land, first the Fuchs feet from the stockhold- about 150 In an action creditor individually, alleged ers because of overvaluation well, Murphy Both known as well. stockholder, given of the who was one of the allowed to oil land oil, flowing flow these wells continued incorporators, properly quan- apparent as to the without diminution placing to reasons for such- April 20, tity produced, value on oil lands. of oil until <§=142(l) bringing Evidence Facts —Val- 6. these wells in 1915. The in of оil —Similar Lease. ue oe Oil entirely quite an new field caused lot appel- arriving In oil lease value of 1, 1915, excitement. About acres, improper admit citizens, pool, putting lees, fractions acres such each formed a land. buying purpose lease <@=113(6) Evidence Lease 7. oe —'Value developing new oil field and the same —Sale oe Stock. appointed agent for oil. E. G. Jenkins arriving an oil In lease purchase to have been the incor- claimed overvalued the field to visit specific porators, corporate to shdw pur- About'April possible. -Mr. 1st Jenkins for, stock sold could have rights land, 10 acres of chased the stock would sell sold was because what the tract, paying part therefor Diebel the value of lease. <@=113(6) This car- the sum of in cash. oe Oil Lease Evidence 8. —Value —Exchange of Stock. thrеe-eighths royalty. Jenkins and ried arriving In of an oil associates, appellees here, not at once his incorporate did exchanges proper to admit was property value of evidence of develop corporation, and sell for stock of where the shown; weight They firbt a well sunk on land. jury. April 17, 1915, a land. About Corporations <§=269(3) 9. —Stock—Valua- days in. Three or four before Property. tion of brought in, well was this well brought finding an sufficient sustain Evidence held incorporators did not overvalue in on the Thrall Com- given for stock statement to in their tract, pany a 10-acre lease state, so as to render individ- by appellees; the wells about 350 .owned corporation. ually debts liable apart. in, After the well was feet Corporations <@=232(3) —Stockholders’' Property. Liability - visit- — Valuation the owners secretary, Acceptance inspеcted They the well. Thrall and ed placed upon an oil in- valuation of corporators, Taylor purpose of met at incor- stock on such valua- who issued porating, and prima discussed the tion, correct, such valuation renders facie Key-Numbered Digests <@=Por topic Indexes other cases see same KEY-NUMBER *2 CO. IRON STEEL Tex.) JENKINS PEDEN changed county, to Robertson after which it. concluded the well on appellant peti- con- its amended filed first well on with the that servatively tion, abandoning allegations $120,000, fraud worth incorporated seeking original petition, re- in its company for made to should ground against appellees amount; to the cover transferred on the to be the lease capital one that company and each had overvalued the lease as paid incorporators undivided own an not for their to stock. which, therein, jury, for interest case was tried before and the one-twentieth incorporated, jury’s stock company was issue for the determination for No subscribed one reasonable market value be issued. was to any pay agreed 20, 1915, company lease on in this stock jury having They 10-acre oil the market transferred answered for same. thereon, $120,000, judgment was rendered to receive in company $120,000, were favor of Mo- on June payment company tion for new trial was ruled, court over- stock of properly application was made.'- and the case has been for charter An same. application by appeal accompanying the to this court. aflidavit The for the [1] The first of error as follows: charter was County Texas, action of “State .Williamson: n me, undersigned authority, objec Hopkins, Y. witness Dr. F. “Before Heslep, appeared G. day personally T. J. R. tiоn of to the effect that me, Womble, who Heslep, having known H. H. thought he he his certain could have sold say, sworn, duly on oath first me been lease on the certain 10-acre tract of land identical are the That each for himself: parties Oil amount been in vicinity charter of executed who of the Caldwell Oil incorporators, full as $200,000, rea because and for the company capital has stock of said testimony incompetent son that said subscribed, full faith immaterial, in; paid the fol- that it does not tend' amout thereof has postoffice lowing addresses names and are the question, of the lease and be capital subscribing parties stock of the of this cause the same does not show even the post company: [Setting names out adjacent market value of said above That each.] each officeaddrеss subscriptions the on ten acres conveying paid gotten full said testified he could have rights mineral all the a lease on merely testimony and said survey Diebold out land tends to show the said witness Thrall, in Williamson near the town situated to the value of first without his county, Texas, there is now one on which largest producing qualified in the having oil wells that there is expert upon as an Thrall, barrels newly near the town of field discovered same kind and character as leases 2,500 producing at least which is now the one issue. per day. property drilled from time to time. on this There drilled is also by appellees, among is contended and others will be two more wells con- The land herein things,- the court committed error veyed particularly described as follows: is more admitting Hopkins, Dr. [Setting description property.] out of, complained admitted, which is not us, are herеun- “We each of whose names solemnly attorney subscribed, appellant swear that the value of waived error placed $120,000, erty, on this which we have fully going subject on'cross- one, and and conservative reasonable witness, bringing examination out further dollar stock swear and additional of like kind of each stockholders herein can be new par and above.” setting from said witness. Without out the signed by Heslep, full, Hopkins J. R. This affidavit of Dr. it is suffi- H„ Heslep, Womble, duly say T. G. H. cient cross-examination secretary accepted to. sworn of state attorney plaintiff’s out the follow- placed witness, the valuation granted on the and ing testimony from company the charter. The then com- examination, to on direct not testified purchased business menced do some wit: machinery, etc., agent bogging get my from the me as- “I some together and sell 20 aсres pellant, sociates pur- who was Independent, just $250,000. That was the Home pose goods, and who saw Independent. That the Thrall north and east of well and flow of oil he sold before from.it considerably east Caldwell Oil Com- goods. produc- that pany’s not close to tract. It was 10-acre production; It was further tion. failed, After a short while wells point There was little it was. most of the hands just the They east ran down of. appellant * * * a receiver. The then filed suit strip. going were nearest organize it. We county against mo some Williamson seek- in We it. were to have individually to recover from them They anything with it. to do not to goods corporation, alleging sold to the buy lease. That was the last of wantecl that; something of during April, few forming like the last corporation, sorts of fraud April. days That charging procured the charter was agent a reаl estate man or It was 20 acres. who through fraud, from the' of state I offer. don’t know he was made the who parties.” etc. for; buying venue of this suit consent Eastern some issued to lease of the sells for is what locality; as testified is comparison his his further, longing had a flowing having given borhood of the market what what it is ilar etc., a certain lieved he could have sold of Dr. that what are but he testified to on given without holds Palmo, is harmless ters from Waco v. a later witness. evidence, facts not amination, to such facts. be reversed respect understand the rule on ness 133 W. Ramsey, speaking n Supreme lease M., used the "The It will be remembered In As the Thrall permissible the Caldwell brings opinion cross-examination of a opinion S. K. & acreage, that stock competent is there are several Oil on direct examination about this the case before flowing оr its that, position further contended I-Iopkins well in 108 Tex. opinions that he had can leases testified out Company’s Oil Howard, Court held that 10-acre tract reduced to the cross-examination' is following language: when similar T. worth, of the stock or *3 417, he makes the witness lands and one can sell Independent of what when a said, nothing value. stockholders, for similar directed, Independent’s well, and further any location, the facts Ry. well on direct of Provident it is objection. announced in the above case corporation. values, 33 And if it, admit Hopkins objected sold, similar person Co. prove values In the L. R. A. 413, as well as their 199 W. flowing argued party his, represented by for on In the to be that where but different his 10-acre witnesses; examination, bought familiar he waives admission of that when lease upon which he based 194 S. cross-examination, ways last his Texas, living value, his 10-acre lease lands to was by appellees their was asked and what the stock case of elicits testified witness, land, a case would twice as much oil National (N. S.) character of S. W. cross-examination and sold Supreme analysis, unsound, with the same vicinity 658, and that both adjoined lease, right his witness and, worth; facts to those Independent of lands 104 Tex. certain mat- we to which arriving on direct ex- that he Slayden v. 103, Judge objection.” brings the same mean for Cathey v. 1104, the Cald- $180 improper speak this wit- Bank of witness, further, worth; of sim- with a 20-acre leases, values neigh- yet for is Court, party been and, soil, be- be- out his we it it was individual. him state what never this pre-existing would flocked to the field of site, testimony it safe lowed offered value as well came the field neighborhood attempting of of property. We are cited to Louis & M. 138, have been sold which the with a the Thrall well facts which would determining the only way in the Thrall oil Caldwell Oil cumstances of the the was to show what on case, asked and offered for" there is no bought truth, it must cient the market. admissibility, on which he question share, and tended, ment ent some “As [2] It place great parties buying $150 it, bought for thing, issue, 126 S. W. or seems developed is further we are to fact naturally value of quantity .worth, knew stock that the must then excitement created $200 and sold in the gusher producing $200,000. Having given I. appear in a value for his stock. general guide a value practically every state, went to the asked should bo allowedto say fact following language permit fai'm, that of the Caldwell so used.” the owner was concerning the cost of in, bought * * * use $180 Independent, that Dr. for some of market value for negotiate based his But, or for flowing unable that the Ry. Company’s lease, of the Thrall oil determining might general as mineral 84, have sold or and have his witness to that similar or or advantageous thing per the evidence. argued, him to field, value of Co. v. Maxfield the land. be ascertained 26 L. A.R. it, nase, given. to constitute market sold, well disposed his lease with in his or frequency naturally In It was what, is: had a share, number well on a 10-ac-re landowner is what it a sale of it to a rule is to the weight, Hopkins and sold with a common it, offering reason or investment on way shown, state that compare the intrinsic value of and, it, the Thrall things; Was so, and with' land, There was no lease day producing flowing, this, to adduce in order and, If things stock. it is assume, of trade in suffi that the case of is used: demand for range light, offered $200 affect the mind lease that had (N. producing uses, to establish a limited to and not error, after the first it was for, though uses, or as a town lived leases, as well as in field, should be will the facts Co., indeed, sold determining what the well on that, bringing argued, opinion, S.) 1111, in his Company’s if he have been which the purposes, Independ- had been which he thing, had sold or could apparent we think it is con- true test bring 94 Ark. the cir visited private for, it had leases to the value, knew lease state, price littie judg- well any St. up- its al- on Tex.) & STEEL CO. IKON v. JENKINS PEDEN 183 comparison 1, 239; sold, 171 Mo. Home Railway proving Railway S. W. v. 71 Brinkerhoff could have been state 447, 133; Lbr. 118 Mo. 24 S. W. Hill, 54, 659; flowing We worth? Co. v. 70 Tex. 7 W. well on S. with a Mackie, 498, Co. v. W. that it Tex. 9 S. are of Company’s 451, 804, Rep. 766; 1 L. R. A. 10 Am. St. the value of the Caldwell it, Morrison, Letcher v. 1010; with a well on 79 Tex. 14 S. W. Schneider, Thrall 10-aere Wallis v. Tex. adjoin- 492; Slayden it, Palmo, S. W. v. 108 Tex. with a 1103; Railway Packard, re- 194 the conditions S. W. Co. qual- improvements, garding ity, S. W. two etc., alike, proving and-in The second of error Independent Thrall It of the lease of court erred in the wit- *4 prove ness, proper Lee, objec- have been what it could was sold for under Dr. L. L. existing The conditions. well tion of with reference to what brought people on in of the was' was offered for a 10-acre lease owned independent April 17, him, fully plaintiff’s The well 1915. as is- more shown in adjoining exception lease and out on an bill of No. 21. The issue 13, brought survey, in on was case was the market value of the Caldwell n incorporated on The lease. The contention April 20, pellees them 1915. The value appellant contending, is that was property is assailed among things, other Thrall oil field being proper as for excessive. We believe steady production, had not settled down ato showing the value way showing there was no it it, flowing their to 10-acre lease with value, although had a market it introduced show the value of the scouts, attempted a lot of oil that the lease was not worth who to show well on it. 10-aere lease with two reference to It similar with leases were proper, therefore, was contended that it was improvements in other re- circumstances, under the to show the value spects, showing the Thrall and in the value of lease, by showing, of this what sim- proper could lease it was what it to show «for, they ilar leases sold what but could have have been sold for. for; being been sold there market no value appellant [3] The contention that the property April 20, 1915, for the stock or no lease Caldwell Oil purpose-of appellant being and the to show incorporated, market value at time it was that, on account of the well on the lease or, did, if it that no one could appellees having brought in on the 17th experts. value, except its these scouts some oil Some of April, 1915, of on and the formed jury pеrmitted to tell the April 20,’1915, that there no market was what, worth, opinion, in their the lease was par- property value for the stock or at this although each on cross- admitted time, only way ticular could that the market value examination that one could tell where no property be'proven for this was located, found, long oil or when it was how scouts, lot of oil who were familiar with the last, etc., property was worth would Texas, different fields and had had ex- you what for. could sell it Therefore perience buying selling oil leases in oth- having appellant believe it was introduced this character of places, er but in this field. On the con- testimony, for trary, appellees the contention of was that the appellees Hopkins, to show Dr. who lived $120,- lease with the well on it was worth neighborhood of the Thrall visit they 000, incorporated for, thе amount daily ed the field from the time the proving value lease in, bought well was any- experts, were not confined to the oil trading them, developed saw a 10-acre locality body property familiar with lease knew of existing lease, and conditions selling stock in $150 his well for from to time, testify, testifying that in per share, $180 was offered share neighbor- of other par being for some situated, similarly what Stock this hood well, of his companies what it could similarly sit- and other sold, by comparison improvements, etc., have been with reference uated judgment proper go the Caldwell Com to aid sold them in arriving pany’s what the lease on it was worth. by ap- that, it is further contended worth. And pellees Therefore we hold the admission of error, general is that the true rule is not reversible error, thing under the of a is what will circumstances of this case. of the value test n bring assignment City market; Therefore the overruled. thing, Charbonneau, 387; such a of Ft. Worth v. S. its 166 W. no must then es of thing, Boyce Gingrich, App. 198, the circumstanc- v. 154 Mo. 134 S. be ascertained Railway 81; case, intrinsic W. v. Co. Maxfield 94 Ark. uses," 85, it, prices (N. 1111; S.) L. R. A. asked 126 S. W. cost of indeed, any Davis, it, and, Railway v. facts Co. White W. Civ. Cas. and offered naturally App. p. 58; Meysenburg, affect the minds of Ct. State § which would . above n buying ple; activity poses, that I had lease was ment well ing sell quarter that ion. He stated: I for about one-sixth were spring going erty. plaintiff. the the state the facts the ry ness terial, knew the place, and therefore said to be material, April, 1915, ciently qualified, whatever erence that an the sum of land Lee fered for his part joining ment, value in erty substantially the the surface thereby “I [4] The third my the same. well was was preclude opinion a effect 10-acre lease that whole appelleеs, one-sixth parties buying north, was people was neighborhood. 10 going on on oil itof in his Lee was with a well elicited on. was I sold tract. There a lease render the to the value of acre, testify, as. it. That in the the Caldwell Oil aeres land, impossible brought matter to the lease owned about the two months. to be asked or because the Company’s, also on the Diebold bored. royalty to for. well on was I $50,000. oil with reference brought erred brought prejudicial an acre and I retained a1 opinion and good many people stayed I the value of $120,000, were and the because and was real upon wholly ways. did of the Caldwell 10-acre lease. The appearance while quarter witness an my my for the further I oil business , leases. After the I was people similar to that of the on it and wholly in their well. acre. was estate Thrall oil in, the same be determined to show the lease. There was at did sell some and of that which he land, there would the There that and, a 10 acres of answer thereto inquiry I do remember it had a he had not been selling, irrelevant was what Dr. Lee because, well as what he it on the not valueless, given. quite a Thrall oil field was, had no Lee fair at the time were I market for giving. nearly number of to irrelevant and oil an sold, ,was Lee in our got $2,000 not, on the of the land one-eighth royalty qualified neighborhood, of the said stated that field and based his as that of excitement was That aere, survey. were was with directly very rights prior to said no The fact belonging and sale all property in 10 acres reason April, showing determining north. for him to and imma I reasonable experience nor would hood at during north oil producing hest offer land, was my prop stimulat up Caldwell was the offers оil develop deal of royalty to people. sought nearly There lease, south there Cald opin Cald- judg- suffi from reference to this matter that I pur then hav time with peo that well wit first give and ref My my im ju ad- of- he of both producing porated. out when were a to and then B. measured measured remember and good. came that Jenkins the and wells mony county the to the the It incorporators, therefore was in his This and the witness having tifying and the plains the lease owned cause said witness was not opinion to the value of the the the dice mate of the value of on it on came in. what lands were bought was one of the best best well was the think that unreasonable as ue that time. After and I pay for it saw and saw the. look like look like there was crazy, measuring see how incorporate [5] The fourth seems that F. is our purchase money value he did gоt something sales made in the second best values of assignment came out witness wells 1,000 it, in, to Delemater, I think shows that 10-acre tract of land That he had opinion, case, think subject had other wells toas and sold and seen other a certain number of the fixed the value other. told; calculated to see what I the action values had much of the oil hours; about no Taking had held a April' deep *5 opinion barrels and having about testimony clearly purchase for the go after went wild after no of that lease appellant pole, substantially: I L. W. Hensley the value of the said oil lease. at information with reference time, into Thrall like two weeks know about what it was the that oil experience wholly disqualified they According present was 1,300 I 20s the other Taylor, reasons we had two tanks. 12 the sentiment No. permitted having well. That have had a little any'limit inquiry objections oil he that Murphy would fair occasion, No. 2 years. that well. myself Hensley were, well came in. That well objected producers two position was, was one was barrels 1,600 we in oil field of the court in seen turned qualified reasonable market I also know property. there was no and was they put lease, for in that stated this wells, ‘‘J. Louis wells, was hours, I put and had three permitted then went was- night they to what That well. barrels. We had land that. the oil after our conservative were shows oil, of the oil lease. per of sheriff to measure the oil they testimony, with reference a limit. in the field. of I believe present in, the field. The have, testify what, first turned oil oil then., at that time.” up days but not calculations, down a also they put was to day. error com well That after permitting I believe overruled, drilled been at all lease; we from they lease, facts there $120,000. _ Glddings, 'value I business, the tank that one, that well neighbor way give do I It didn’t present placing I don’t putting think it agreed people. did not incor No. preju- should I had That testi were would well, well, trial know very they seen sent and esti tes and sell, val six we be oil up an he to I Tex.) PEDEN IRON STEED CO. v. JENKINS putting this out believed that lar to the Caldwell Oil We anywhere 10-acre per day, 2,000 2,500 barrels quantity, quality, reference to something getting 45 cents like and we were improvements, character of and terms oil, per that would so we knew barrel day, undisput- something $1,200 per further an because like be that is figuredand arrived the basis on whichwe record, ed fáct in this testified to defend- estimated valuation. We witnesses, ants’ own tract of one- really $200,- among worth ourselvesthat was acre, fourth acre, or one-sixteenth of an pro well’s made that estimate on the 000. We duction, put I money it in at did and wе would for more sell acre well, any my stock sell not offer to tract, than a 10-acre and further because I enter into it was not sale. did because proof competent of isolated sales agreement majority among the of the stock an1 agreement property. establish the market That was that it. holders hold . it. stock and not sell We hold our we would urged by appellee It is there no stock; put a on the 2Ya error in the action of 1.” testimony complained the witness to error; appel- Taking of in this in consideration the fact lant, cross-examination, appellant caused this claimed the lease at, anything witness to what it was valued similar worth like matters not examination; corporation for, out on direct judgment thought the circum- testified that he it- was under testify this sale 20, 1915; stances, he and was before witness to how that it aft- in; piece er the the válue Caldwell well came his placed arrived associates way they ground adjoined that of and it it on the to was therefore admissible to show what at the value of arrived establishing producing. The sold circumstance in show Fuchs and revenue produc- Murphy value. We are still wells were assignment, ing apparently amount of as merit and same is over- n in, had been two ruled. when first *6 complains Company assignment [7] The seventh that Oil months before the Caldwell peo- permitting brought ple these the court erred witness the Therefore their well. objection presume testify, G. right W. Grant to over the -that this well the had plaintiff, together oil, with reference to what he was of to flow would continue by for some the fered of the of the stock Caldwell to be sunk other wells and to entitled ment the jury accordingly. Oil not the said offers could The were bеcause valué it judg- facts, constitute the value of the said Caldwell and in know the assignment assignment oil lease. This will be consid be overruled. must . eighth and complains ered in the ninth connection with fifth [6]’ The grouped assignments, con and permitting which will witness I>r. erred in the the court together. ap sidered will be noted that objection testify, L. L. Lee to over the the making pellees, application for the char plaintiff, that one-fourth of an sold having stated, state, ter to the acre land near the Caldwell Oil applica accompanying affidavit the the $2,000, and lease for of an one-sixteenth tion with that "we and each of value of the ieference to the acre because the the near said for the sum us, are the whose names testimony wholly irrelevant solemnly subscribed, hereto swear that have immaterial, and and no evidence was shоwn placed which we that the land sold Dr. Lee and the land conservative, reasonable.and any on which manner Caldwell lease were shown the and we the dollar of further swear similar, nothing of each stockholders stock herein royalties reference whether or not the above,” par can be sold at in our for the stock and what it was stock different, the land were the same or and for what was show offered the further reason that the value of the for. sold The Caldwell lease could not be determined represented the of the cor segregated showing what a one-fourth acre poration, and, if the stock could have been might for, of another tract sell as it is a mat par, sold for then the lease with knowledge, ter of common and is also shown $120,000, worth on it record, value larger the evidence in the that a by appellees. price find no merit in as We these be obtained for small tracts than large signments, going are therefore tracts. Without into overruled. length, matter complains we are of tenth that it is The there is no assignment, permitting merit in the court erred in witnesses M. D. Fraim, Grant, Rodgers, therefore overruled. J. R. G. W. O. O. assignment complains Jenkins, Oliver, sixth Nelms, E. G. B. C. J. E. Gid- permitting court Fraim erred dings, Lee, objection Ileslep L.- witness R. L. and T. G. to testi- J. testify, objection fy plaintiff ref- over plaintiff, with reference to what to what stock one-six- erence the Caldwell Oil teenth for; anof assign- acre and Company one-fourth of an acre sold and the eleventh Thrall for, oil field sold action of the court because ment was permitting shown these simi- in G. Grant tracts were the witness W. to tes- 186'
is, as to the market value of the lease owned "elevant do Oil $800 for E. the failed to do in in connection the stock or inadmissible as market value said Company or the market value of the lease of well Oil ket when traded for other and as to what certain stock the mobile for 7 reason that said said automobile for Ed tion, Oil such to by plaintiff’s bill of Caldwell Oil for, or poration par, T. plaintiff, together. Oil cash, T. fifteenth ments certain situated, vit stated that' for, offered for er to could and what order er to sented the either or the value action, stock Qf establish not show tify, bought (c) (a) (b) of said prove the Kraitcher the Caldwell Oil G. Jenkins Kraitcher plaintiff, Dusek, establish plaintiff, Company, Company, Company, and property of for 80 such and also company, and “The court since testimony “The court erred “The and Oil over permit prove the stock are overruled. town twelfth, better, for other Company, which assignments oí 40 shares Company and if all of was worth shows proof market and that said Dusek afterwards sold the reasonable These the stock shares of the stock inquiry all of the stock such other the cash market value that he traded what was lots reason the witnesses shares of immaterial, of the lease Company may which therewith, because because those worth this case.” is cannot tending all of objection testify, he considered testimony erred mere erred the stock of the Caldweil Oil as to what the traded he traded in the stock, testify, property, thirteenth, testify, par cannot upon inadmissible assignments are: value said trade single involved because market value of that such corporation, exception.” witness applying which more property, Company, in the affida- the lease of the Caldwell trade for other in and said $27 which arrive at the the stock tо show the reasonable two certain contemplates stock in the Caldwell offered permitting the permitting be the defendants which over error Oil because held better, would not and could of is per may to state proven stock of the Cald- does an only stock company, plaintiif, have been traded property, in said paid the automobile worth corporation sold fourteenth, being Company said to be worth incompetent and for the charter and further be- the reason unless the mar- of the Caldwell testimony are considered isolated Overland auto- share, this been be, have issue in Oil stock it was in the objection and objection houses incompetent them. fully the witness the witness nothing also shown *7 houses and m^ide what was such suit, a sale for Company property, prove value sold for actually prevail- was ir- that he because and, assign- having shown repre- trans- stock, Cald- prop- ques- Cald- with does cor- $2,- the plaintiif, the or of for is not admissible ue of over the Caldwell Oil permitting erence of the the charter of such al, action obtained from in time the charter of the Caldwell which ascertained the value of tained D. S. merit are overruled. jection C. B. Oliver to nesses whose lease. nesses circumstance in the above low erty fered its oil not lease, cannot established for reason that the market similarly value, the ceived therefor for the further reason the Caldwell Oil what ness D. lateral mony bile tion, bile stock cost the said tion not sary not or cumstances the cause what he traded (b) (a) The The The sixteenth and seventeenth (d)“The [8] the error are weight plaintiff, things stock in obtained from admissible constitute the before “The thing' sold, J. “The court' ownеd because the said Appellant’s Hensley and also because isolated in to what eighteenth assignment company assignments $30 show the market value We the value complained issues; because testimony with the Caldwell Oil the the several owners thereof house, objection automobile could not throw situated shares of objected basis was for the witness by cannot be Giddings the reason that no 10-acre court believe the scouts with assignments, as follows: Company could have been sold assignments the reference to the to show the value the several owners lower the Caldwell Oil testimony testify, in a was irrelevant jury share, he could erred in erred iu traded for. proof of testify, erred Oil secretary contention market value company, reference question; (cid:127) shows witness, no market value had market value estimating the trade, are gave court as could sold proven A Company for, over the prove secretary Caldwell J. for, excepted jury. testimony trade, in testify, even property they traded permitting permitting overruled. critical over have Company’s lease, R. was admissible for, certainly oil lease was the said stock and therefore in the stated plaintiff and for permitting of state.” even find what or the amount to the manner traded for admissible, all of which the value of this of the stock the market or traded stock Eraim stock an manner in further because the market val- such trade reason as was neces- All of the wit objection challenges being complained of a sold the stock and immateri- cases over of the automo- light under Company was to.” of state.” thereof Oil showing Oil stock in there examination assignments said' without ob involved objеction of the wit no market Company; the further field thing.” Company that said of trades error because any automo- witness corpora- witness some testify is at the of which ascer- prop objec- could toas testi- could time ref- wit- be of col- cir- re- of in in Tes.) IRON & STEEL CO. PEDEN v. JENKINS 'plains of the authorized pany it payment shall be to at the creation of faith been of pany. evidence with reference part was worth case was submitted issues. er mitting his estimate of the value of the versy Thrall against heretofore, lated sales of stock in permitting sold for. We have considered cannot because Thrall with reference ments ue his ing signments, and same are overruled. knew the in a have been Y. F. the court erred these appear; has been tlie dates cause it was lease owned [10] [9] The The nineteenth incompetent shall be witness paid to state market information position whenever shall sold stock assignments incorporation Hopkins complain evidence, Independent Company’s This is Independent twentieth of the official or shown sustains upon not worth over subscribed, said as to what established statutes of him to made and there is: twenty-second assignment furnish cash, labor value of the as an to what great jury, further because jury of state that verdict of for oil which company of the actual value private corporations the well on duty to be a facts as would to what heretofore, to the market know, taken or Company was done, or its weight expert. testify,' capital must be overruled. voluminous the verdict of improper stockholders shown returned of the Caldwell satisfactory the lease owned is Dr. tbe value of stock company. said and 50 No familiar with purposes, fee and franchise this state that, company, the market in our he believes he could incompetent twenty-first the lease equivalent no merit Company said Fraim do Hopkins §25,000 complaint permit stock has over property received, 10-acre sale Dr. product which he jury it follows conduct it, at a officer, preponderance judgment proof Hopkins incorporated, erred record. The 10-acre- lease of such com verdict, full amount claims this matter evidence to From authorizing him cent, at the time sales on the-jury. property. the time Oil Com objection *8 as certainly is made to show dence shall' training the val- in-good provide witness the as contro on the special- assign of iso or was by the there based could from tificate eom hav- that whom tax, per Dr. not such be- valuation many porators, Mich. skill fluctuating certainly tering outcrop holders ated issued for creditors, ror of actual creditors of their debts. right, pointed by valued the placed upon a fraud they knowingly placed flattering, the chance. mode It case that appellant to he honestly stead of tions, plaint. and The due solvent, may fied receive, file, subscribers ter respect. porators, require and where isfied, further ry giving “But it “When the “No In the case of In the In. the case of is, property, receive, evidence before he fully those who with the value recorded property, the court uses cash value sight paid. there is no to be mines have 111, one knows man, third nature subscription paid fraud to account. their The case fraud. showing and in are provided U. S. money selling judgment. as a complied upon if says: may, corporation, which, determines the would bе fully property the state however the-secretary There is In file, party equally parties description a outcrop!” in the transaction and record said charter. N. W. the charter as charter consist, among or trust how of Coit v. Gold 345, Sup. warranty, secretary property, of state the instant case that case only good in appellees fraudulently this kind execute the charter things utterly corporation We understand secretary But where tested and worked sequestered responsible blowout, Tuck v. acts hazardous character. Young and record not sustained the business and there is no claim or contention to stock is part a with this section payment A very fund have no scientific he 814, no deliberately perpetrated strong willing Mines faith received, mine, a mistake in gross authorizes record thereof. office, other expense called shall and more satisfacto- pass settled different v. appropriated liable to the following language: but of state- was Downing, áccepting will of state. fictitious put in purchase. Ct. is said: upon evidence Erie are not oí full-paid are sensible required by satisfactory property. the shareholders state is on the payable in upon finally speculative, be location, installment is of the the officer pay call the stock- is still Amalgamated other over valuation equity may be, enable to Iron capital stock prima from that property in- required give becomes charter largely hopes honest 76 placing purchased most such cor- or turn received, for com- received, prospect. subscrip- must payment not sat- part or If Co., fraud.” men of Ill. stating L. Ed. things, a debt known incor- .every satis- -facie сhar- over- cash, most How law. used very case flat- out. cre- cer- has evi- 71, in- er- is ceit; really, it owed no debts. reads as follows: tion of the on other debts were simply means: by appellees the value sible on valuing itors of the pression “good ful poses controlling propriation ted in objection or erroneous worthless presumptive shown believed it to be the judgment ed pany. finds holders or trustees as essarily fluctuating “No stockholder “Honestly; At the time Article [11] fraud, capital by discharge articles, Phrases, was formed. All of time of corporation stock.” Nor this case penalty only, either pow, those actually, corporation. judgment vol. as a' deciding appellant, without their and but of little actual did fraudulent manufacturing faith,” in fact or worth the that their mistake forming to how shall he liable to 4, p. Vernon’s created after Aрpellant appropriation beyond duties.” on the this kind without fact that action cannot be consider- nature of the trial Appellant’s whether fraud, collusion, company fraud; speculative in they Such as amount it is used law. Sayles’ pretense.” Words' company honestly that was admit had its honest and faith- against especially court, or amount came did. finding as leasehold nec- pay The law not such mining was admis claim and specified in was one of capital, the stock- a mistake Statutes, by agent the cred- corpora- faith The or court if it formed, However, will unpaid value, place debts com- law, im- ex de- be be in our of will be omitted from der which is However, us to ly tried, saw the well goods mitted A. ion Ry. He sold the pany, ment company. tinue to taking stituted The motion A We desire to (N. S.) improper punctuation, and did counsel fact that the goods. quotation Company. careful On Second things judgment cite no 104 Tex. flow apparently not the views conclusion that the confusion was the trial probably expected risk There was began. the case He saw the well to see the conditions and sell part examination goods capital stock affirmed. ended, producing oil,, say opinion must Motion oil, and, rehearing have not been use to the Caldwell there was no error Therefore the said expressed thereof. and where the agent 133 S. W. on the Cathey M., no does not show used opinion quotation adhered to. and on account if it show at Rehearing. the well to as to what in said brought about in the remain- case was strength and sold 417, goods was anxious record leads did, he was altered, is therefore therefrom language Oil Com- Caldwell company conceal- T. K. & report. to sell goods. L. opin- case. com- fair- con- con- it. R.