Stone v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corp.

рro- govern services attempt to does it nor STONE, Jr., City Appellant, of Pasadena. Authority to Charles C.

vided Au- Pasadena contract between The Authority pro- will only that thority states COR- LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE Pasadena; Au- City of vide services al., Appellees. et PORATION contract is under that thority’s customer No. 998. tract”, but is said parties within not “the Arrangements be- City of Pasadena. Texas, Appeals Court of Civil parties Pasadena and the City tween Corpus Christi. governed tract are not the 100-acre within 1976. January these contracts. either of held, May Denied 1976. 3,1972 Rehearing cannot therefore be contract law, in violation of to be a matter 11,1966 and has not necessar- contract

July agree- of that brought about breach

ily

ment. Authori- cause of action

Utilities’ conspiracy for City of Pasadena

ty and with its contractu- interference

and tortious severed, judgment

al relations action is to that cause of trial court as previous our holdings

affirmed. judgment undisturbed. remain of the suit portion in the the trial court judgment between Clear declaratory Utilities, Apart- Lake Co. Clear

Lake reversed,

ments, judgment Inc. is the November rendered that

here granting Utilities the exclusive

contract sewer service to

right to furnish water and Lake property owned North Clear not create

Development Corporation did Lake binding on Clear

any obligation now portion of the suit Inc. The

Apartments, and Clear Lake Utilities Co. Clear

between a declarato- City Authority Water

Lake interpret and determine judgment to

ry be- July 1966 contract

validity of the and remand- parties is reversed

tween those indispens-

ed, instructions that if joined within a reasona- are not parties

able time, is to be dismissed. that suit

ble and rendered part; reversed

Affirmed part. reversed and remanded part; Christi, Prichard, judgment was After Jr., Corpus final rendered. Edwin C. rested, plaintiff declined to appellant. defendants Agency, Lipner put evidence. The Wood, & Burney, Nesbitt Ryan, P. James and Weil filed instructed ver- motions for Waller, Hunt, Kleberg, A. Lev Ryan, John dict, granted the trial which were court. Christi, Weil, Corpus & Mobley, Lockett Judgment plaintiff was rendered that appellee. nothing take on his tort actions Weil, Agency, Lipner and and that he re- OPINION $2,879.00 Lawyers cover from Title BISSETT, Justice. damages as under the terms of the title opinion rendered this Court policy. The court %rds costs assessed and this is withdrawn December and Várd plaintiff Lawyers Title. substi- reaching the same result appealed. has therefor. tuted In early Stone contacted Weil about in contract involves actions appeal This part purchase of a 70 acre tract suit, institut- originally in tort. Texas, County, Nueces owned Goodstein. tort, contract, ed, involved actions Stone, who desired to construct mobile try title. C. trespass Charles thereon park engineering home hired an 1) Insur- sued: (Stone) Jr. plat firm to an out of 18.639 acre tract Title) on Corporation (Lawyers ance corner of acre tract. southeast the 70 A acre covering an 18.639 policy title owner’s strip of land feet wide out of the 70 acre it theretofore issued land which had tract of tract, adjacent to of the and south south which he al- damages to him to recover tract, line of the 18.639 acre was deliberate- to the failure because of legedly sustained ly from the by excluded land desired Stone as an ex- pipeline certain easements show the gas because of known several oil and to policy title that was issued ception in the pipelines strip. in the attorneys’ fees and to recover him it The conveyed 18.639 acre was tract to bringing as a of his incurred him result deed, by general warranty dated suit; (Goodstein), the sell- 2) B. Weil Isabel for a cash consideration of him, subject land for breach of er of the to $55,917.00. No exceptions or reservations 3) Lawyers of Cor- warranty; Also, appear the deed. on March Christi, (the Lip- and Eli pus Agency) Inc. 1971, Lawyers Title an owner’s issued title president, its who counter- (Lipner) ner policy to Stone which insured the title to of fraud and policy, the title because signed purchased amount the land so in the failing pipeline the negligence in show $55,917.00. premium paid by The was exception in the owner’s as The no mention policy Goodstein. mortgagee’s and in a title bind- policy, title outstanding рipeline easements. er; Weil, Jr., (Weil), real 4) B. the Joe the agent negotiated who the sale of estate money ($370,- In order to obtain the fraud; him, 5) Lo-Vaca land to 000.00) necessary project, the finance it (Lo-Vaca) Company trespass Gathering necessary for Stone to first secure a title, the settle the issue as to try $397,000.00 from the commitment Federal validity of the easements. Housing (FHA) Administration upon completion would insure a loan 12,1973, grant- January Lo-Vaca On commitment, The which was project. duly interlocutory judgment ed an issued, was based the construction of a it, nothing suit plaintiff take in his park containing spaces. mobile home judgment final final when which became June of when the mobile home In jury Trial as before was rendered. complete, 7, park approximately 80% January began on remaining defendants live, gas was discov- high pressure as to a non-suit plaintiff took 1975. commenced, inside the south- approximately but before ered 4 feet after trial Goodstein boundary ing tract. La- ern of the 18.639acre value of the 18.639 acre tract as ter, were pipelines easements; several other such dis- with the pipeline burdened re- boundary of the inside the southern fused to testimony covered admit offered appraiser pipe- concerning It was then tract. learned that value of the land with the strip lines in easements in a of land burdened easement and its val- easement; ue permit 25 feet in north of the without the approximately width would not tract. of any line of the 18.639 acre introduction concerning south evidence constituted than an amount reduction of strip something less the FHA com- mitment; area, comprised 5½% of refused to acre about admit evi- relating dence to attorney’s аrea of the the total entire tract. fees incurred litigation. Stone in this of the FHA regulations to certain Due concerning proximity residential Title insurance is contract indemnity. purpose Its is to pipelines, discovery indemnify to live structures insured for of the title boundary guaranteed. within the of the failure so pipelines title redesign policy acre tract was sued on 18.639 forced Stone layout configura- of the event of an park. outstanding The new interest was adverse to the park spaces. guar- indefeasible only tion of contained anteed spaces thereby, provided: reduction in the This number “ the FHA to scale commitment caused its . . then the liability of the Com- $318,500.00. downward be pany only part shall such whole liability limited above as shall bear Shortly after the were discover- same ratio to the liability whole that the Bonniwell, ed, notified Mr. Charles interest, claim, right adverse estab- who, said, legal attorney, “started may lished bear to the whole estate or contacting proceedings rolling land, interest in the such ratio to based Title, (Lawyers Title Inc. on respective values determinable as of Agency)”. January Suit was instituted policy. of this date 12, 1972. Supreme Court, The Texas in Southern interlocutory judgment effect The of the Co., Guaranty Title Inc. v. Prendergast, judicially of Lo-Vaca was estab- in favor to (Tex.Sup.1973), speaking easements, pipeline that the on which lish Justice through Reavley, Mr. in clarifying were question, were located the in meaning the of the above-quoted provision easements which were in full force valid policy insurance, of an owner’s of title said: effect at the date of prior to “If the amount of the policy is the same deed to the 18.639acre tract. There Stone’s as the value insurеd, of what is . appeal in favor of judgment is no from the the recoverable loss is the value of the Lo-Vaca. ” outstanding interest. ACTION LAWYERS THE AGAINST That disposition announcement controls the TITLE against of suit Stone’s Lawyers Title recovery damages policy. of under court, trial commence- prior to the The Here, amount of the policy, and trial, granted Title’s mo- Lawyers of ment entire value of the 18.639 acre at all tract prevented limine which Stone from tion in pertinent same, times appeal this is the evidence, asking ques- any producing $55,917.00. of the concerning the cost of removal tions Law- court also sustained pipelines. In his fifth petition, amended his trial Title’s special exceptions Stone’s yers petition, alleged 12, that on March elimination resulted in the pleadings, value market of the 18.639 acre Lawyers $55,917.00; against cause of action of tract Stone’s on that same recovery attorney’s During of fees. Title date the value of the outstanding interests trial, Lawyers (the granted pipeline $23,- the court Title’s easements) Lo-Vaca 000.00; testimony concern- to strike Stone’s and that he has been damaged motion project”. point, Lawyers from At that is entitled to recover $23,000.00 testifying on objected under the terms his based Title the sum of cost”, capitalization “the on income policy. his owner’s title of grounds case the measure this answer, original on Lawyers Title’s filed out- damages is the value of the market general February consisted of interest, rea- and for the further standing original Its fourth amended an- denial. sons approach speculative, that such swer, judge January the trial filed with remote, conjectural many and involves un- addition certain admissions objections sus- known factors. allegations defensivе that do con- tained, and Mr. Ericson’s in that testimony consideration, under spe- cern the issue now respect appears only the record on a bill that the value of the outstand- cially denied exception. ing $23,000.00, interest was but admitted $2,879.00. Ericson, bill, Mr. its value was on the testified that he first took into consideration the fact testified in his that a special use existed for use of this value of the entire tract was diminished tract (mobile home and the fact that park), $23,000.00 the sum upon discovery the FHA had issued a commitment with thereon, pipeline the Lo-Vaea respect development of the and that the tract burdened those as a He testi park. mobile home further $32,917.00. a value easements had His prior fied that the issuance of the commit 1) figures for those was: the reduc basis on the ment did in fact have some effect FHA original tion of commitment in the 12, 1971, and value of the land on March $51,400.00;2) the loss of income amount purchased on ben that “most land is future redesigned park; mobile home from use that efits to be derived from whatever redesign cost 3) park. of the land to”. He then testified put is to be policy does not insure loss or dam 18.639 tract the market value of the acre caused age those factors. Stone being pipeline without burdened with the testify did not as to value of the out easements, $55,- standing interests. There was no error in interests, 917.00, outstanding striking testimony since testimo alone, considered value did have market ny concerning the value of the 18.639 acre However, as of that date. on to went “as tract burdened ease instance, say particular that in this his defi question” ments is immaterial value, nition willing buyer, of market “the outstanding issue of the value inter willing concept”, applied seller could not be est. tract, 18.639acrе because “the value Ericson, appraiser, Mr. John an market”, is not in the the and easements as He expert by called an witness Stone. the tract “would stand the of mar test the appraisal that he had an of stated ket that he definition”. He then stated 12, 1971, acre tract as of March the 18.639 capitalization” used the “income test in de by subject property purchased the date tract, termining the the as bur value of appraiser an He further stated that Stone. easements, dened the based on rental of approaches uses one three generally the home from spaces income from mobile at value arriving opinion as to the redesigned park. the In he testi summary, land, 1) which are: the market tract of fied the market value of entire the approach, comparable where sales are tract, value $55,917.00, $23,- was diminished considered; 2) approach, the cost where easements, 000.00 because the and reproduced”; structure is building “the its value ease market as burdened the 3) capitalization approach, $32,917.00. and income ments was His concern expenses gross ing where the are deducted the diminished value of the acres 18.639 income, gross “bringing it down to was the projected from based on rental income of income”, “capitalized park; projected occupancies which is then a net future occupancies; produced management that is into an indication value estimated fees 62 rate, expenses; capitalization question et cetera. Lo-Vaca, submitted to and to testimony, a basis an opinion as no one They

Such else. were answered by Lo- value, concerning speculative Vaca, market is too party who was not a to the suit at the to be considered. Lower Nueces River time of trial. The answers interrog- Sellers, v. Supply Water District 323 S.W.2d atories cannot be used Stone as evidence (Tex.Civ.App. 1959, Title, writ against 324 Antonio Lawyers suit they since — San State, e.); Breithaupt ref’d n. r. 321 “may against be used only the party an- (Tex.Civ.App. 1959, swering interrogatories”. 168, 361 ref’d S.W.2d Rule — Waco e.); T.R.C.P.; Turnpike r. Frankfurt v. Texas Au n. Black v. Frank Paxton Lumber Co., thority, 311 261 (Tex.Civ.App.— (Tex.Civ.App. S.W.2d — Dallas writ). 1966, e.); Texarkana writ ref’d Plywood n. r. General Collins, Corporation v. (Tex. S.W.2d 224 Neither nor Ericson testified as to Civ.App. writ). Points — Amarillo interest, the value of the outstanding 21 and 24 are overruled. Their con- pipeline testimony easements. cerning approximately the value of the 17.6 We have considered points Stone’s remaining excluding acres after the area in 34 and wherein he contends that it was easements, testimony concerning their error for trial court to refuse to admit tract the diminished value the entire testimony concerning into evidence re easements, because of and their testi- duction in the amount of the FHA’s com “opinion mony as to their of the value of mitment to insure completion of im question the 18.639 acres of land in as of provements due the discovery to burdened, if not with the pipelines easements on the pipeline easements and val- pipelines and its property. points have no merit. The if them” ue burdened with does not meet matter of the reduction of the FHA com imposed by Prendergast, supra. test mitment is immaterial and irrelevant to properly The trial court excluded the testi- issue in against Stone’s action Lawyers Ti mony re- of both Stone Ericson with tle. Points and 35 are overruled. spect value. Points 13 and are over- alleged in this peti- third amended ruled. tion, which was on May filed Lawyers The trial court also sustained had paid obligated he either had himself special portion of exception Title’s to that $3,275.00 pay attorneys’ fees “on said pleading alleged where he case”, “by the conclusion of the trial of removing question cost of cause, this Plaintiff will have incurred $125,000.00, and that failure expense attorneys’ additional fees in the Title, it, after demand made $4,000.00”, for sought amount of both the pipe- remove recovery Lawyers Title. A special subject from the land entitled to a lines him exception by Lawyers was levelled recovery of the face amount of the policy allegations grounds; on two those one ($55,917.00). The court further refused grounds reads as follows: interroga- into evidence the written admit “(2) Alternatively, if Plaintiff is entitled to and answers Lo-Vaca concern- tories fees, recovery recover attorneys’ such ing the pipelines the cost removal of work legal would be limited to the complains of from the easements. Stone attorneys accomplished his in connection rulings points in 24. those and against Gathering with the suit Lo-Vaca Co. physical

The cost of the removal and under such circumstances Plain- required allege a of tiff be specifi- is not measure dam should to insured, Stone, cally part in ease. the is what such ages this overall work re- recovery damages against of actual lated to the suit Lo-Vaca limited to Gather- by ing him of the failure of Co. and what would because constitute a rea- sustained strip occupied attorneys’ part sonable fee for the by to the 25-foot such interrogatories legal in services easements. rendered.” Lo-Vaca Corpus in at by practice of well law Christi exception was sustained an order 31, 1972, court, signed July January, in that such association the trial which was April until when Mr. his amended continued alleged, Stone in fifth 1973. 22, airplane Bonniwell was in an crash. killed petition, February which was filed on he He did not have further testified 1974, recovery entitled to a that he was any personal of what Mr. Bonni- knowledge $2,975.00 attorney’s Title for from with the well did for Stone in connection “on legal for services rendered said fees brought against any particular action de- through January 1973”. case fendant. court, by signed order on Febru- The trial Prichard, attorney Mr. from 1975,directed that strike from

ary up January sometime after to pleadings all for petition fifth amended his including appeal, of this also testi- time attorney’s points fees. 16 and exceptions. fied on reviewed in a bill of He ex- attacks the order which sustained the legal he detail the services which rendered ception required and the order which him to He to Stone connection this case. attorney’s all for pleadings strike fees from that his services included: legal testified trial petition. his Points attorneys who conferences with various complain by of the refusal the trial court to case; represented the defendants in the testimony admit into evidence the of Robert appraisers; con- Prichard, pre-trial conferences with M. and that Kendrick of C. Edwin de- hearings ferences and that involved all attorney’s to relating Jr. fees. fendants; re-pleading ex- special because of It was held in Title & Shaver v. National defendants; ceptions filed ‍‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‍some of the Co., (Tex.Sup. Abstract 361 S.W.2d 867 hearings at preparation of and attendance 1962),that an insurer under an owner’s title defendants; on various motions filed no policy, upon receipt proper insurance preparation for trial on actions litigate tice and to demand insured against He that his all defendants. stated for the removal of an easement and theory joining all of the defendants basic subject impairs across the land which “to this from in one suit was free good to guaranteed title which was easement, so”, we if we could do and “if indefeasible, required to do so where an that, then to recover under the could not do (because outstanding adverse claim against policy, and recover defend- easement) against the insured’s asserted anything we had in tort”. ants in tort if It further held in case that title. He testified that he never called further defend, company failure the title upon Lawyers “actually bring Title to suit demanded, subject it damages will pay easement”, and evict Lo-Vaca from the payment attorney’s fees and court $2,075.00 charge reasonable he is insured where costs incurred he em- spent the time for the time against relief forced to file suit secure 12, 1973 “for ployed by January Stone until claim. the adverse standing the determination of the pe- in the third amended allegations parties various the determi- case and a claim for attor- were not limited to tition was a nation that the Lo-Vaca easement against the action prosecuting ney’s fees outstanding valid easement sought recovery of attor- Lo-Vaca. Stone property”. When asked if he had a break- against all defend- case, in the actions ney’s fees he down of time devoted circumstances, those alle- ants. Under replied: subject special exception.

gations were “I not have to each do breakdown ... I don’t particular defendant January original petition filed be broken out so to think that could time was attorney at that His 21, 1972. speak. I think it’s all interwoven.” Kendrick, Mr. Bonniwell. Mr. Charles to order for recover attor attorney, exception on a bill of In testified Title, it in- ney’s Lawyers fees from with Mr. Bonni- associated that became upon allege prove respect cumbent him to both to the suit against Lo-Vaca; in- legal the reasonable value of stead, services ren- it would have established conclusive- enforcing in dered terms of title ly attorney’s fees sued for were policy against issuing company, title incurred in preparing against case all distinguished from the legal Therefore, value of the defendants. if there was error attempt services rendered in the in sustaining to recover the special exception and in damages contract, ordering from others for breach of the pleadings concerning attor- fraud, negligence. ney’s stricken, for they for This he did fees er- harmless 16, 17, 18, allege not do. did not rors. Points any offer and 20 are over- ruled. proof money of amount of that would attorney’s constitute reasonable fees THE ACTION AGAINST LIPNER solely against related to the suit Lo-Vaca. AND THE AGENCY us, Under the record before it only can be Points 14 and 15 assert that the trial attorney’s concluded alleged fees sustaining court erred Lipner’s in and the attorney’s were for fees incurred in suing Agency’s special to exceptions Stone’s third though all defendants. Even we were to amended petition which resulted in the allegations hold that the contained both elimination his against of cause of action the third the fifth amended petitions recovery them for attorney’s of fees. Un sufficiently alleged a cause of action provided by less statute or contract be against Lawyers Title the recovery parties, tween the attorney’s fees incurred fees, attorney’s and that it was error for by party litigation are not recoverable special the trial court to sustain the excep- against an adversary in an action in tort pleadings tion and to order that all in a suit a contract. Wm. Cameron & recovery attorney’s fees be stricken in York, Co. v. Surety American Co.of New petition, the trial reversal in this case is (Tex.Comm’n S.W.2d 1032 App.1932). We not warranted. have no permits statute this State which 434, T.R.C.P., Rule provides, in attorney’s the recovery of fees actions part, judgment “that no shall be reversed such as brought against Lipner those appeal and a new trial ordered in the Agency. points are overruled. ground cause on the trial court point attacks the action of

has committed an error of law the trial in sustaining special court ex- appellate unless the court shall be ception of Agency complained the error third petition amended for the reason that amounted to such a rights denial of the ruling eliminated cause of ac- appellant as was reasonably calculated against tion them based on negligence for cause probably did cause the rendi failure show the anas improper judgment tion of an in the case.” exception in the owner’s title policy. The portion of rule interpret That has been point cannot sustained. ed mean in order to obtain a rever sal, the appellant only must show not agent was the committed, an error of law was but authority also Title with countersign it probably caused rendition policies im the latter’s lands in Nueces judgment. City Hill, proper v. Galveston County. Lipner president wаs the (1952); 151 Tex. 246 S.W.2d 860 South Agency. In v. Wolff Commercial Standard Corp., Co., Texas Icee Inc. v. John E. Mitchell Ins. 345 S.W.2d (Tex.Civ.App.— Co., 489 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus S.W.2d 668 n.r.e.), Houston writ ref’d was held — n.r.e.); Christi writ ref’d Vise Fos that a company title insurance owes ter, 247 274 (Tex.Civ.App. duty to its point insured to out out — Waco n.r.e.). writ ref’d testi standing encumbrances, excluded only and that the evidence, mony, if duty admitted into would not a title insurance company has to its attorney’s have established the fees with indemnify insured is to him loss

65 Corp., (Tex.Civ. on ruling in In an Hudstan Oil 243 S.W.2d438 by defects title. suffered 1951, n.r.e.). in was held Pren writ ref’d point, App. it Paso almost identical — El Co., Guaranty 454 dergast v. Southern suing Lipner Agen- In to addition (Tex.Civ.App. 803 [14th S.W.2d — Houston cy negligence, also because of sued 1970, n.r.e.), a title writ ref’d Dist.] Lipner’s them for fraud. third counter- a abstrac company was not insurance point the correctness of the trial asserts title, the title examine employed tor to concerning the action for ruling court’s duty no to the insured company assumed ground on no fraud there were an of title. to examination with reference evidence, pleadings, supported by Lip- negligence exists of action for No cause ner any representation made of a fact that failure to dis company a title for was false. prior cover in title to issuance defects Stone, 4, 1 points to contends that the very policy. nature the title granting Lipner’s trial court erred parties precludes relationship between the instructed Agency’s motion for verdict is There no any recovery negligence. was evidence that Lipner because: there case, a different rule in this apply reason him fact representation made a of a agent has the insured sued the where false; a showing duty there a countersigned the title president, its who and the existed between Stone is over policy negligence. Point 25 a regard making rep- “in to the ruled. a making resentation or the omission of appeal there from a Where is fact”; there was evidence that statement of judgment grants an instructed ver Lipner representa- knowingly made false dict, appellate required is to re court acting agent as tion to while view the evidence most favorable Agency; and the uncontradicted evi- judgment appellant, indulge against the dence showed as matter law every may properly inference be rely detriment on the statements evidence, disregard from the and to drawn by Lipner. conflicting v. all evidence. Cal Seideneck Where an action is based Associates, Bayreuther 451 752 S.W.2d fraud, constituting facts fraud must be al (Tex.Sup.1970); Bass v. General Motors leged present must allegations and such Corporation, 491 941 (Tex.Civ.App. S.W.2d of fraud. issues to determine the existence 1973, n.r.e.). —Corpus Christi writ ref’d 200, Mensing, Tex. 12 984 Baines v. 75 S.W. determining The test for wheth Lasseter, (1889); 753 Allen v. 35 S.W.2d er instructed verdict should be ref’d). The writ (Tex.Civ.App. — Waco granted whether not reasonable men be facts and relied must circumstances may of controlling differ as to truth be petition may set so that out Lee, City v. 143 facts. of Fort Worth Tex. petition determined itself whether from (1945). .2d 954 In for a 186 S.W order true, alleged, if facts and circumstances to be entitled to an instructed defendant McWilliams, v. amount fraud. Scott verdict, plaintiff’s evidence must so Paso (Tex.Civ.App. S.W.2d 491 — El people reasonable could not dif weak that dism’d); Hermsmeyer, 212 writ Burchill v. plaintiff’s fer to the conclusion that the Worth (Tex.Civ.App. S.W. — Fort Perren v. proposition not established. writ). no Dallas, (Tex. Baker Hotel of Upon presumed, and it is writ). Fraud is never Civ.App. — Waco verdict, that until application the trial rule of universal for instructed motion presump court, credibility alleged proved, fraud is passing without witnesses, of the trans accepts as true all evidence tion is favor the fairness Lambeth, v. 2 Tex. 365 favor of action. Turner which, liberally construed in when McDonald, v. (1847); such Hazle S.W.2d 343 support tends party, the adverse 1969, writ). And, (Tex.Civ.App. contention. Mellette party’s adverse — Dallas 66 “pre

it a Kinnear, has been said that court should 484 S.W.2d 150 (Tex.Civ.App.— sume a want of fraud rather the exist 1972, than n.r.e.). Beaumont writ ref’d a ence fraud in transaction”. Hawkins long It has been settled that a Campbell, v. 226 (Tex.Civ.App. S.W.2d 891 plaintiff recover, all, must if at only upon 1950, n.r.e.). Antonio writ ref’d —San him, cause of action alleged by Tex.Jur.2d, It is stated in 26 Fraud and upon the in facts stated his pleadings as a Deceit, 99, p. 61: § action; basis of that cause of he cannot “ . . Allegations . concerning fraud- upon recover facts different from that as representations ulent on which the cause pleadings, serted in such unless there has clear; of action based should be been a consent to the trial of issues outside pleading specific allega- should contain pleadings. Jennings v. Texas Farm tions of the acts and conduct relied on Co., 593, Mortg. 124 Tex. 80 S.W.2d 931 and be definite and certain (1935); Coast Corporation Gulf Investment be specifically alleged, Fraud must but Prichard, v. (Tex.Civ.App.— 438 S.W.2d 658 there are hard and fast rules as to how 1969), Dallas aff’d 447 (Tex.Sup. S.W.2d 676 should be . . done . The 1969). language plaintiff used in amount of detail with which fraud should his pleadings, and specific words and alleged be respect differs with to phrases him, employed by are be to accord facts . . general of each case . If a ed logical their and obvious intendments stated, rule be may can it be said that the implications. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. petition is the allegations sufficient if Bayliss, v. (1884); 62 Tex. 570 Swift & clearly misrepresen- show the devices and Company Bennett, (Tex. v. S.W.2d adopted bring tations that were to about 1963, Civ.App. writ ref’d n.r. — Texarkana alleged . deceit. .” e.). 45, T.R.C.P., Rule plead Under petition may give A fail fair ings “plain shall be couched and concise notice defendant because of ambigu language”, and “shall be so construed as to language ous therein which convey does not justice”. always do substantial It has been picture defendant a clear plain general design policy of the Texas tiff’s contention or of the facts which he system pleading require litigants contention, upon support or, relies of his (in plain out their pleadings) set may give fail to fair notice because its intelligible language the upon facts allegations, though clearly expressed, may they rely. Company Gunnells Wil Sand v. mislead theory the defendant as to the hite, 596, (Tex.Civ.App. — Waco plaintiff which the recovery. seeks a 2See 1965, n.r.e.). writ ref’d office McDonald, Practice, Texas Civil 5.05 § pleading is to define the issues to be tried. (1970). City Co., Williams New York Ins. (Tex.Civ.App. S.W.2d 219 Paso alleged in preparing for the — El n.r.e.). purpose plead closing writ ref’d of a of the real estate transaction called ing sale, is to inform the court and for in the adverse the contract attorney that the of what party plead the contentions of the for the Agency made examination to the subject er will be at the trial of the D. case. C. on “November Delavan, listed, items, Shamburger Lumber Co. v. 106 which among pipe- other (Tex.Civ.App. question line as an S.W.2d 351 encum- — Amarillo ref’d). It property. writ While technical exactness is brance to the was further required, grammatical alleged opinion in strict rule of the title was delivered Lipner shortly always applied, construction need not after it was written. pleading give adequate Concerning representations must fair and notice pleader following allegations of the facts which the relies in made to party may properly appear petition order that the adverse in the on which went trial, McCamey v. prepare his defense thereto. to-wit: “ We first direct allega- within attention to the .On March thereto, concerning the Defend- tions the title just prepared days prior a few Agency’s Plaintiff attorney called the delivered to ELI LIPNER ant WEIL Lipner JOE before March 1971. Stone ar- stated that telephone and gues by Lipner was some that the failure to disclose and that there in his office easements, and to Stone the contents of the title pipeline opinion over confusion respect to if he knew of with the easements amounted to the Plaintiff asked property. allegations There on the fraud. are to that or easement pipeline effect, position replied regard that he did not and Stone’s in that The Plaintiff only by resorting Mr. LIPNER was can be sustained infer- any, but that know of ences, to be able to we supposed who was refuse to do. the one out. Mr. LIPNER search the records alleged When fraud arises be divulging the de- hung up without then facts, duty, cause a failure to disclose Later that same the confusion. tails of because of fiduciary either confidential or thereafter, or two day day the next or relationship, to disclose facts those must see the Plaintiff and came to JOE WEIL exist order make such failure actiona straight- was everything that told him Drilling ble as fraud. Moore & Moore Com mis- that Mr. LIPNER was ened out and White, (Tex.Civ. v. pany 345 S.W.2d 550 pipeline easement as where taken App. n.r.e.); writ ref’d Phil was verify that the matter was. To — Dallas lips Co., Petroleum Co. v. Daniel Motor out, telephoned the Plaintiff straightened (Tex.Civ.App. S.W.2d 979 just prior on or Mr. LIPNER either — Eastland Here, judgm’t cor.). writ are dism’d there everything asked if allegations which, true, of fact if would replied away. Mr. LIPNER squared imposed duty Lipner have to disclose was, and there would be no that that ” the contents of the title to Stone. Policy. in the Title exceptions Prendergast Guaranty See v. Southern Title alleged that the statement then Company, (Tex.Civ.App.— squared away”, coupled “everything was n.r.e.). Houston writ ref’d [14th Dist.] then caused be Lipner with the fact required Facts to establish a or confidential mortga- and a policy issued an owner’s title fiduciary relationship between Stone and policy on an interim con- gee’s title binder Lipner alleged. were an Such inference acres, the 18.639 and fur- struction loan on is by not warranted even the most liberal title war- the transfer of approved ther construction of the petition. fifth amended deed, pipe- ranty of which mentioned none Furthermore, only privity of contract easements, representations constituted line Lipner (and between the Agency) Stone and title to Lipner and the “that the alleged that is is that which arose virtue plaintiff buying was not the land that policy. of the issuance of the owner’s title pipelines pipeline with or ease- burdened petition allege does not actionable alleged these further ments”. Stone Lipner’s failure to fraud because of disclose inten- were made with the representations (to Stone) attorney’s the contents they upon in the manner be acted tion opinion. title contemplated; that he relied reasonably оnly allegations were of ma- of fact with refer- representations which upon the facts; by Lipner repre- of a willfully were ence fraud because they terial knew, alleged in the exer- that was to be false is Lipner, sentation known, above-quoted portion of should have limited to the of reasonable care cise e., false; fact, (Stone) petition. allegations The other i. they were were false at caused to issued the owner’s that the statements not know made; policy mortgagee’s and that he and the title binder they time deed, misrep- approved none of which men- damages because of such sustained exception tioned the resentations. tract, not, Division, title of the 18.639 acre do United Corporation States Steel themselves, constitute fraud. Fryer, 493 S.W.2d 487 (Tex.Sup.1973); Pan handle & Santa Fe Ry. O’Neal, Co. v. allegation by Lip- that the statement S.W.2d 1077 (Tex.Civ.App.—Eastland 1938, “everything squared ner that away”, ref’d); Jones, writ Wilson v. 45 S.W.2d 572 coupled his acts represen- constituted (Tex.Comm’n App.1932, holding approved). tations that “the title to the land was not An absence of burdened with one of ease- the above enu merated ‍‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‍allegation ments” not an of fact. It elements of actionable fraud will pleader. mere conclusion be sufficient granting for the of a motion for an instructed verdict. Panhandle & A special allegation controls over a Ry. O’Neal, Santa Fe Co. v. supra. general allegation. Monsanto Company v. Milam, 494 (Tex.Sup.1973). S.W.2d 534 In fraudulent representations determining whether a lawsuit be could must be pleaded. established as Hayden v. plaintiff’s maintained on the basis of the Dunlap, 84 S.W.2d 306 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dal pleading, Printing it was said in Houston writ). las We now examine the Hunter, Co. v. (Tex.Civ.App. S.W.2d 312 Concerning evidence. representations 1937), —Fort Worth aff’d 129 Tex. by Lipner telephone Stone in the 1043(1937): conversations, “ which apparently occurred . . . The rule be of law seems to on either March 10 or Stone testi that, plaintiff well settled in this state if fied: facts, pleads generally goes a state of and “Q right. All just prior Now to the pleads and specifically partic- farther and closing of this transaction on March ularly subject, on the same he rely cannot 12th of you any have

upon general allegations, but is con- conversations with Mr. Lipner fined in Mr. recovery specifically his to those Weil about particularly Specific and in this plead. allega- 18.639 acres of general tions will control those of land? char- ” . acter. .A Mr. Lipner called me and quoted That rule asked me if approval I knew any of Richardson v. First National Life Insurance easements on the property that I Company, 419 (Tex.Sup.1967). S.W.2d 836 was purchasing, my words were case, Applying only that rule to this it can that, ‘My Lord, to the effect Eli, I meaning be inferred that of the term don’t know of anything out there. away” “squared specific is limited your That’s job. supposed You’re allegation exceptions “there will be no be the one that’s being paid to Policy”, coupled. the Title to which it was title,’ search the hung up. and he McDonald, Practice, Texas Civil See Shortly thereafter up Joe Weil came (1970). 5.07.2 § to the office and told me that Eli was confused and that he it had all In order to raise an issue of fact in straightened out. That there wasn’t an action because of an alleged fraudulent any easements there. it There representation, upon incumbent wouldn’t any exceptions 1) Stone to introduce in the probative evidence: made; policy. I called representation Liрner that material Eli to con- false; that, 2) 3) Lipner that it was knew it firm and he did. That was the it, was false when he made or that he made why reason I entered into the con- recklessly knowledge without its tract. truth and as a made the positive representation assertion; with the 4) ^[******] Q it; Now, 5) what was the upon intention that he act that he substance representation; you conversation when upon acted in reliance called Mr. 6) he injury. Lipner? suffered Oilwell with the testimony at variance Lip- Mr. fered to find out from A I wanted trial issues pleadings, consent out- Weil was con- personally if Mr. ner implied. side will not be Bu- pleadings con- the correct information veying Jean, chanan v. 141 Tex. 172 S.W.2d easements, Lip- Mr. cerning to the (1943). the absence consent true, In there was it’s said that ner plead- trial of issues that are outside there T found out that confusion. difference ings, or there is a material where property. on the no easements allegations as to a proof between made’.” exceptions will be There matter, particular pleading the defect in following Lipner then made Counsel for aby will unless covered trial be fatal objection: pleadings the evi- amendment. The object portion going “I am present normally dence should same that Mr. found testimony defense, theory of offense case on the were no there plaintiff specific may alleges be. aWhere pled he’s that’s not what because wrongful respect, may conduct in one his fifth variance with It’s petition. not recover evidence some other petition.” amended conduct, wrongful assuming, form overruled. objection was course, timely prop- that the defendant objection: testified without further erly objected introduction such Stone, was “Q thеre conversa- Mr. McDonald, evidence. 2 Texas Civil Prac- a term like use of tion tice, (1970). 5.18 No trial amendment § away’ your conversation ‘squared in by was filed in the instant case. Stone Lipner? with Mr. allege precise, Stone did not in Yes, A there was. plain Lipner, at language and concise that Q that was used or you recall how Do any time, no pipe told him that there were exactly what was said? line In that easements on the 18.639acres. Well, in vain. That A it was first used connection, Stone, that his it is noted apple pie order. everything was in that petition, alleged Lip- second amended away. He Everything squared represented ner Charles C. “verbally doing.” Jr., Stone, property what not subject knew that The statement away” ments Lipner told Stone quoted, have been. meaning effect” whatever more than They were not knew now where had resolved “He purchased. Words to ^[*] on the (Lipner) said that he and will qualifies using not ^[*] property. Lipner’s exact “Everything was support the statement as the confusion. ^[*] words of interpretation phrase the easements were. there statement The that effect.” an inference ^[*] property “words testimony, were no ease- Lipner may ^[*] Joe Weil That he being no squared to that that I ^[*] him, that last ments”. that cial er, including encumbered amended told sible circumstances, Lipner adequately ings Stone would been sustained. evidence that been property”. exceptions him that “there were and was at allegation since was sustained, alleged. petitions Lipner advised testify the fifth amended to that Lipner The was omitted. Under those variance with the facts that pipelines or there would have been clearly And, had the that testimony at the trial objection statement, and the trial ever was not were outside represented filed thereaft easements was inadmis petition should have that fairly filed objection petition, Lipner plead in the ease that spe specific complaint has were no easements on When there ruling thereon conclusion that the state property. an adverse made and been court, alleged repre as constituted such ments and acts obtained from has been from un materially different testimony sentations objection to the admission an testimony that a certain verbal prof- equivocal ground that the on the into evidence statement Any was made. contention that that he did not request attorney to make pleadings, construed, liberally are suffi- a title subject examination cient to allow the introduction into evidence undisputed him. It is Lipner statement which said have anything to do prepara- with the tion during telephone made to him their second sale, the contract of executed on 19, 1971, only February conversation will admit of a forced and that he did not know of brought warping particular construction about existence of that contract until language meaning, executed, after it was from its usual deduc- when he acknowledged another, receipt of ing inferring one fact from Stone’s check $1,000.00 as earnest money. give pleading allega- which would an in- “Lipner tion that approved for terpretation ordinarily which it transfer would not title the warranty receive. deed from Isabel B. Weil (Goodstein)” is support without in the evi- There is no probative evidence of value dence. representation made material 12, 1970, On November the examining to Stone that was false. Stone’s conten- attorney for the Agency prepared a written tions that the statements Lipner, cou- title which showed the pled with the failure to show the easements question as encumbrances to the title to the in the owner’s policy mortga- title and in a 18.639acre tract. There is no evidence that gee’s exception binder as Lipner personally knew of the existence of indefeasible title guaranteed that was any pipeline of the easements. Lip- representation amounted there ner said that he did not talk with the exa- were no pipeline subject easements on the mining attorney prior to March false, property, which was cannot sus- concerning any land, easements on the be- tained. cause he was under impression “the is undisputed It that a contract sale those inwere that so-called 25 feet Goodstein, seller, between as pipeline alley”. His testimony in that re- buyer, covering the signed 18.639acres was was, spect as follows: February 1971. The contract was “Q But now these other pipelines, the drafted attorney. It did not Magnolia, the Lo-Vaca, the Sea- provide proposed sale would be graves and the Line, Southern Pipe subject made pipeline those were found but were eliminat- property, provide but did that the con- by you. ed only tract would be closed if Stone received correct, A That’s because we were un- contract, a FHA loan commitment. The der the impression least I was among provisions, other advised Stone: —at under the impression those —that . . that he should have ab- pipelines were in that so-called 25 covering subject stract of title property feet alley. attorney examined an buyer’s over Q Now, was that decision to eliminate selection, with, or should be furnished or those pipelines strictly up you? thereon, obtain a policy title insurance A That was my decision. a agrees buyer policy and seller to furnish Q you And your did so on own volition? through of title insurance to be issued Lawyers Corporation, My Title Insurance A judgment, yes, mistake of sir. . .” customary the usual and form . Q act, It was a though, you willful

did? A act, It was not a no, willful sir.” deed, Stone admitted that dated which conveyed proper- He further stated that the easements were ty question prepared by to him was “wilfully” not left out of either the owner’s attorney, attorney own and that his also policy title mortgagee’s binder, or the title prepared the contract sale executed on and that he deliberately “trying was not February 1971. further admitted hide something Stone under the table” from subject dated March trust on the in “be- he made mistake but that Corpus executed him to secure who, he (Weil), of mine” lieving a friend Association in the Savings Christi and Loan that’s where “honestly believed thought, $370,- payment his note in the amount Those statements were”. Privity of contract between 000.00. Stone testimony from by any disputed not were and the of the execution Agency because any other witness. or from mortgagee’s title binder delivery perti- at all times There was existence alleged neither nor raised. records in the lawsuit certain nent to this is- attempts characterize the commonly called plant, Agency’s abstract mortgagee’s suance of title as binder if the cards When asked “take-off” cards. being equivalent ordering ab- of an evidence) into con- (which introduced title, duly stract of certified the abstrac- pipe- description particular “this tained There is no attempt tor. This must fail. line,” Lipner replied: (or a title similarity between title binder sir, I admit- Yes, it does. And have “A of title. policy) and an abstract today we ted numerous times by Lipner that there part for leav- Thе statement made a mistake on our exceptions in the owner’s title . . .” would ing that out mortgagee’s title binder was policy or in on the sub- questions and answers Further binder, as policy true. Neither the nor are: ject issued, any exceptions (other than contained contending “Q Well, Lipner, we are Mr. case). those which are immaterial this you made more than a mistake. exactly policy guaranteed The title to Stone you intentionally. That did purchase what he contracted to on Febru- intentionally does mean? A What 19,1971, ary purchase on March things Q you knew about these That 1971. you and that eliminated them inten- The failure to show the easements tionally. exception policy as an in title and in know about them. A I did not binder, itself, will not support Q right. All Lipner, action for fraud either cards before me A I did have those Agency. duty upon There was no Policy was issued.” when this Title upon Lipner, countersigned who alleged: Stone also agent as policy the title Lipner, “. The defendant Eli Title, upon the to show encumbrance Corpus Title president in or the binder. policy title either Christi, plain requested was also Co., v. Ins. 345 Wolff Commercial Standard policy mortgagee’s a to issue tiff (Tex.Civ.App. S.W.2d 565 — Houston an interim construction loan binder on e.); Prendergast writ ref’d n. r. v. Southern Associa Savings and Loan Corpus Christi Co., Guaranty (Tex. Title $370,000.00. . .." tion in amount 1970, writ Civ.App. Dist.] [14th — Houston e.). individually Lipner, ref’d n. r. neither any an agent agency, nor as of the assumed that is no evidence in the record There with to an exami duty Stone reference a On the request. made such plaintiff ever nation of title for him. Corpus contrary, undisputed it is that Association, at Savings and Loan Christi Lipner There is no that know- evidence 12, 1971,request- to March prior some date ingly a false statement to Stone. mаde a Agency (and Lipner) to issue such ed the any Lipner There is no that evidence is no evidence that Stone “recklessly” any binder. There representation without 12, 1971, binder until March knowledge positive ever saw the of its truth and a day adjective the deed was exe- “reckless” has which was one after assertion. The quality meaning a state or of Stone in been defined as only cuted. The mention others, rights disregard of of to the deed wanton was the reference binder he I or conscious indifference the results conversations had. would not may consequence have follow as of one’s this any entered contract in are no facts from manner we went acts. C.J.S. 70. There when down to Mr. Lipner’s sign Lipner office if presumed which it can be acted contract he said any contrary, On the would’ve there were such manner. easements this property on or if the Lipner shown that was concerned about the Policy it, Owner’s Title said cer- he telephoned matter Binder, tainly the that I 11, 1971, bor- on March and told him Stone money rowed the on. and asked if about the “confusion” he Stone the title contacts that to March the issue of “reckless” lines were amine the sations on either March Lipner, nated the easements that same sults which then tion that permit contacts were: admissible ment knew events says there were no easements on the land Lipner during subject anything which took rights, based on his argues he Lipner made actually Stone in inference “take-off” evidence day might “relied to the contract of sale. The 1971. 1) about he was reassured in indifference to the re- “misrepresentation” place the 48-hour follow. The fact to be drawn from the on” occurred. Those in this case will not did not he had three contacts wanton which were set “pipeline alley”, two It was belief that cards does not raise action. 10 or on the telephone easements; “reckless” state- personally disregard during day period prior 1971; the pipe- by Weil conver- out in elimi- ques- these later and Milam, supra. ex- succeeding be construed as time of closing. must be considered asked. The Lipner and up The foregoing statement “I relied on Mr. A I relied on Mr. Q Now, the answer to the ^[*] bered piece ticular ed? Lipner) question have entered into the contract.” Stone, Jr., one hundred would way rely statements made statement, Mr. Weil ^[*] answer, at the time with have been transaction, testimony in the See Monsanto on that he was ^[*] easements, you one in its entirety, cannot these along percent. both of which made mind of question of closing have hundred ^[*] that was encum- that Stone relied any statements with the next and Mr. Weil purchasing just I you Company doubt, Jfc Charles would not that was per If this par- describ- at the cent” there n any (by C. 2) March when the owner’s title further testified: policy mortgagee’s title binder were and the “Q regard With the actual closing complet- of sale was ‍‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‍signed. The contract transaction, where the various ed, only according to the evidence in the prepared, instruments deliv- record, when the deed ered, money exchanged and the Goodstein, presumably was executed forth, so on and was there any so There no evidence that it was delivered. placed upon reliance by you par- day it was executed. not delivered on the involved, ticular instruments and if “reliance”, element Concerning the so, which ones? testified, part, as follows: in Stone A I upon mortgagee’s relied title “Q anything there in Mr. was Stone I binder sir. rеlied complete Yes, — you upon relied in particular that Mortgagee’s on the Title Binder for entering the contract of Febru- into $370,000.00 get to me to payable 19th, ary 1971? (sic) for instruction bill a Mobile con- A have entered the I on the Owner’s I would not Home. relied Title Policy, exceptions this land under stated no in purchase tract which Policy Mr. Joe Weil had would encumber the any if that condition knowledge Policy.” of the informed me

73 by foregoing laid down cases and au- title, an election Concerning had Stone thorities, fifth petition Stone’s amended (at 1) he sale: could the contract of under judgment against support will a either not an abstract expense) have ordered own his misrepresentation Agency for or attorney; 2) by his own examination of a fact which induced Stone to material upon title insurance could have decided 1, 2, close transaction. Points 4 Seller). He chose (at of the expense are overruled. was written title latter. attorney Agency to the by Agency’s THE ACTION AGAINST WEIL pre- and was personal was Weil, verdict, his for instructed in motion It use and benefit. pared for its exclusive Stone, law, alleged: as a matter Stone, a to the benefit did not inure upon any representa- could have relied stranger to that transaction. complete him, by solely tions since he made relied us, noth before there is Under the record an owner’s title policy; provisions legally excused ing that would have Stone’s showed, of real estate contract as a sales in to close the transaction accord refusal law, rely matter of that Stone did not of the contract. with the terms ance Weil; any representation made in with was furnished accordance insurance there no evidencе that Stone did or was at It conclu request and his election. which, anything failed to do but for the the evidence that established sively Weil, he have representations of would commitment obtained final had Stone no evi- differently; done there was Housing the Federal Administration from representation dence that was to the time the transaction (FHA) prior purpose inducing made for the Weil was of the terms all closed. On land; as a purchase Stone and fulfilled. the contract had been met law, have relied matter of could not Certainly, the did not induce conversations concerning the any representation Weil sale; it into the contract of to enter him pipelines of the because Weil did location days 18-20 entered into some before represented not own and never to Stone A place. person took conversations tract; any part that he owned acre rely upon impossibilities. may not Certain knowledge and that Stone had actual were not a factor ly, conversations existence of the and easements on transaction, closing of the because the 70 challenges acre tract. Stone those with the was closed in exact accordance grounds judgment points and the 6 to 11. contract; Lipner’s with state in accordance undisputed It contacted exceptions in that “there will be no ment early late about Weil in accordance policy”; acquiring acreage out of the acre Good- that he had to have statement park purposes. stein tract mobile home exceptions in title binder showed no Weil, broker, fully a real advised estate FHA commitment get order final planned project. time at that of Stonе’s $370,- securing the loan for prerequisite The 70 acre tract shown was not The element of “reliance” 000.00. said that Weil told him then Weil. Stone by the raised evidence. free all that the tract was encumbrances thereon, except for a lien and further testi- mo- properly granted court The trial fied: Lip- verdict in favor of for instructed tion emphasized “. .1 to Mr. Weil that First, Agency. there is and the ner completely this land had to be free evidence, Lip- by pleadings, that supported encumbrances, ease- meaning of a any representation to Stone ner made Mr. that I ment. I Weil explained Second, the was evidence fact that false. if it get loan on this land was could not of actiona- all the elements fails to raise of an encumbered with easement. against Lip- brought fraud in action ble n n n n n by the rules Agency. and Tested ner 74 (Weil) pointed

. He strip the west of that of land. Under the circum- and to the east of what’s been referred to stances, in view of representations by pipeline alley, being Mr. as as by made Weil of knowledge and of the pipeline the area where all the easements tract, 70 acre Stone was under duty that were located in 25-foot area. That make independent investigation of his nothing transversing prop- there was own concerning the location of the pipelines erty which I considering was at that time traversed the Goodstein land. Rown which has been referred to as 60 or 70 v. Rice, tree 890 (Tex.Civ.App— testimony acres in has come out. 1968, San Antonio writ ref’d e.); n. r. Old

n n n n Bibbs, National Life Ins. Co. v. 184 S.W.2d sfc afc 1944, (Tex.Civ.App. writ ref’d totally

I Weil relied on Mr. — Austin w. m.). o. There evidence that Stone to explain anything that he sustained damages considerable because of might knows about the then or thе easements pipelines. and come to know at a later date.” pointed Stone also said that Weil out on a Johnson, In Peckham v. 98 S.W.2d plat of the 70 acre tract “the 25-foot ease- (Tex.Civ.App. Worth af —Fort 148, pipelines sup- ment where all were firmed 132 786), Tex. 120 S.W.2d posed be”, strip and that this land was confidential relationship was defined as bounds the 18.639 acre tract. “covering every form of relation between by It is both further established evidence parties wherein reposed confidence is by can reasonably and from inference which another, one in and he relies upon and acts Weil, drawn from the evidence that late representations of the other and is 10, 1971, again as March assured Stone guilty of no derelictions on his part.” own there were no then easements the land It is established law in this State that busi under contract of sale. Stone testified that ness dealings can and often do create a he would not have entered into the contract confidential relationship par between the of sale with Goodstein and would not have ties that will impose duties obligations purchased the land had he known of one other the nature of fiducial existence of the easements in question. obligations. duties and Mac Donald v. Fol contract sale between Good- lett, (1944). Tex. 180 S.W.2d 334 stein and provided Stone also that Katz Moreover, a relationship confidential may Associates, associated, with whom Weil was moral, social, arise informally from domes paid were to be a 6% commission of the tic purely personal relationships. Fitz closing. purchase price upon Presumably, Hull, Gerald v. 150 Tex. 237 S.W.2d 256 paid commission was Weil benefit- (1951); Stone, (Tex. Bush 500 S.W.2d 885 negotiations ted therefrom. All Civ.App. Cоrpus Christi writ ref’d n. — toup signing conversations that led e.). r. Unquestionably, the issue of whether the contract of sale were between Stone or not a relationship confidential existed any never Weil. Stone had contact between Weil and if not conclusively prior with Goodstein to date of trial. evidence, established raised the undisputed

There no evidence that Stone had actu- facts in evidence. knowledge al of the existence of the ease- though Even there is no evidence pipelines here There is ments involved. had actual knowledge Weil that there sign evidence there visible purchased were easements on the land on the 18.639 At pipelines acre tract. by Stone, reasonably it can be inferred that outset, Stone was advised Weil representations may Weil have been all of the recklessly any knowledge without southerly confined to the most 25-foot tract, positive re- the truth thereof and as strip of the acre which was assertion fact, “pipeline to as alley”. pur- they ferred The land and that were made adjacent chased to and north intent act them. That 28, 29, this case. Points submitted and 31 have been issue should are jury for determination. overruled. Lip- were such that

If points the circumstances We considered all of the of have Weil’s relying upon in justified appeal. ner felt error forward in this All brought location regard the representations points the and of of error not discussed easements, it can then pipelines the and those that with this are inconsistent justi- inferred that Stone reasonably be are overruled. representations. those relying on

fied in portions Those judgment of the which supports Stone’s evidence which There is Stone, decreed Jr. that Charles C. recover upon and he relied acted contention $2,879.00 against Lawyers Insurance en- would have not representations, Weil’s Corporation policy, owner’s land, purchase contract to tered into the nothing that he against take Eli transaction, have closed would not Agency Corpus Title Insurance on them. so relied and acted had he not Christi, Inc., portion are affirmed. That Stone, long prior to March The fact judgment which decreed that Charles C. in ob- expense considerable incurred nothing Jr. against take Joe B. Weil Engineering Urban taining the service of reversed, brought against is action meeting requirements and in Company Joe B. Weil is remanded to the court trial large loan in order to obtain a FHA for a new trial. project is some planned commitment on the portion That of the as- judgment which upon repre- relied evidence that Stone sessed V3rdof the costs in the trial court by Weil, he acted and that sentations against Lawyers Corpora- Title Insurance Additionally, the representations. on those portion judg- tion is That affirmed. redesigned park had to fact ment which assessed %rds of such costs existence because against reformed, judgment Stone is contention that lends credence here rendered that Vsrdof the in the costs agreed accept the south would not have trial hereby against court assessed place specified his land at the boundary of Stone, Jr., remaining Charles C. and the V3 76 Wells,

v. 495 (Tex.Sup.1974); 510 S.W.2d 916 S.W.2d 351 (Tex.Civ.App. — Texarkana Bayreauther Associates, 1973, writ); Seideneck v. Cal no Luse v. City Union Transfer, (Tex.Sup.1970); 451 752 Bass v. S.W.2d 324 S.W.2d 935 (Tex.Civ.App.— 1959, Corporation, dism’d); General Motors 491 S.W.2d 941 Waco writ Foster v. Lessing, 346 1973, 939 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus (Tex.Civ.App. Waco, 1961, Christi writ S.W.2d — — e.). writ ref’d n. e.); r. Drilling Company ref’d n. r. T-L Propane Company, Northern Gаs 516 mind, With these rules in we go to the (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus 710 S.W.2d Christi - admitted testimony that the majority would writ). no throw out disregard. A “conversation” Lipner, occurred between Weil and Stone. necessary elements of actionable Stone concerning testified at the trial this 1) representation fraud are: that a material conversation as follows: false; made; 2) 3) was it was that that Now, “Q it, when he what was the speaker the made knew it was substance of the false, recklessly conversation you or that he made it without when called Mr. Lipner? any knowledge positive of its truth and aas assertion; 4) that he made with the in- Answer Stone: upon by tention that it should be acted I wanted to find out Lipner from Mr. 5) party; party' that acted in reliance personally if Mr. Wil conveying was it; 6) upon thereby he that suffered the correct concerning information injury. majority now holds with re- easements, and Lipner Mr. said that its spect to the action in fraud asserted true, that there was confusion. T 1) Lipner Agency: although and the that found out there were no ease- fraud, may there be some evidence of such ments on the property. There will be ” pleadings; supported evidence is not exceptions no made.’ 2) Lipner there was no evidence that Lipner’s objected attorney to that portion “recklessly” with- representations made the of the testimony Lipner found out that knowledge of its truth and as a out there no were easements on the property assertion; 3) that positive the element because that was not pled what Stone had was not raised the evi- of “reliance” petition in his and that it was at variance disagree. I still dence. with his petition. objection trial overruled. The majority now asserts that First, majority argues that Stone objection should have been sustained allege precise, plain failed to and concise because the statement is not supported by Lipner language told him that there the pleadings objection if had been were no easements on 18.639 excluding sustained evidence, the above It necessary allege acres. is not such there would have been no evidence that precise language Lipner’s in view of failure Lipner represented ever to Stone that there except object to Stone’s Fifth Amend easements on property. repeatedly Petition. It has been held ed rule, general and is the so well established Petition, In Fifth Amended authority, alleges following that it should need no citation of representations petition be as 1) that the will construed favor were him: “. . .to verify Gulf, possible ably pleader. straightened out, as for the Colo the matter was Bliss, Railway plaintiff rado Santa Fe Co. v. 368 telephoned & Mr. either on or Equally just well (Tex.Sup.1963). prior S.W.2d and asked if the rule of law that in ab everything squared away. established is Mr. exceptions, special petition was, will replied sence that it and that there would be liberally pleaders’ in the exception ‍‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‍.”; construed favor. in the title . policy . Gardner, 2) 137 Tex. Scott v. “. . . (Lipner) Mr. told (1941, adopted); Hanley everything v. Oil squared away concern- Ass’n, Capital Broadcasting ing .”; 3) Tex. . . “. (1943); McRae, Anderson v. representations 171 S.W.2d 864 these were made with the Warranty they for transfer Deed be acted intention that (GOODSTEIN) B. reasonably contem- from ISABEL WEIL Plaintiff in the manner Unquestionably, any pipeline did not mention plated also easements, law support constituted common fraud pleadings were sufficient part as can be on the of ELI LIPNER and LAW- question by answer por- TITLE AGENCY OF CORPUS reading pertinent of YERS seen from INC., Petition, CHRISTI, Fifth Amended to- in that such statements of Stone’s tion ELI part and acts on the of LIPNER and wit: TITLE AGENCY OF COR- LAWYERS I “COUNT CHRISTI, INC., constituted repre- PUS 12, 1971, On March or within their that the title to part sentations on days prior thereto, the Defend- just few buying the land was was Plaintiff not ant ELI LIPNER called the Plaintiff pipeline burdened with or ease- telephone and stated that JOE WEIL representations were made ments. These was office and that there some was they with the intention that be acted easements, and pipeline over confusion upon by the Plaintiff in manner rea- any if he of asked the Plaintiff knew (i. e., sonably contemplated, he would property. easement on the pipeline or transaction, close the take title to said he did not replied Plaintiff property and construct FHA insured any, but that Mr. LIPNER was know thereon). park mobile home Plaintiff supposed to be able to the one who rightfully relied the truth of said out. LIPNER search the records Mr. representation which of material hung up divulging without the de- then facts. These statements and acts were of the confusion. Later same tails willfully made and done each thereafter, next day day or the or two they knew, three Defendants and or in WEIL came see Plaintiff and JOE to care reasonably they exercise everything straight- told him that known, should falsity have of their was mis- ened out and Mr. LIPNER statements (Emphasis sup- and acts." pipeline taken as to where the easement plied.) verify was. To matter was out, telephoned straightened the Plaintiff Lipner not in any any manner level just prior either on or to Mr. LIPNER special sufficiency exceptions to the everything and asked if March pleadings aspect nor to other squared away. replied Mr. LIPNER plaintiff’s pleading they on which went was, that it that there would be nо disagree majority I trial. hold- Lipner n exceptions Policy." (Empha- Title objection to ing the admissi- supplied.) sis bility Lipner’s of the evidence of statement Mr. LIPNER either on “. ^[*] everything was 12,1971, ^[*] Also, when he told Mr. STONE ^[*] the statement made squared away con- ^[*] or just prior ^{[*] [*]} been sustained easements on the at variance with Stone’s so for several additional reasons. Stone that “I found out there on the property”, grounds pleadings. should have that it was are This is no First, cerning pipelines coupled with the I believe the evidence admitted plain- Mr. caused to be trial was responsive fact that LIPNER then court through allegations part TITLE tiff’s of fraud on the issued LAWYERS INC., Second, Lipner. OF CORPUS CHRISTI for the variance com- AGENCY Policy (at- plained to be an owner’s of Title Insurance about such to exclude the A”) Mortgagee’s “Exhibit and a evidence admitted at trial and our review of tached as same, must been Policy Binder on Interim Construc- have a fatal vari- not Loan, Certainly every which contained ance. variance is fatal. tion neither of easements, plus implicit the A workable criterion is in the mention of fac- recognized dividing approved that Mr. tors variances be- further fact LIPNER 78

tween those which are material and those absence special exceptions the plead which are not. A variance immaterial ing. Employers’ Texas Insurance Associa when so it would insubstantial tion Price, v. supra; Greenfeld v. San Jacin mislead, prejudice surprise, otherwise Company, Insurance 319 S.W.2d 134 McDonalds, opponent. Civil 2 Texas Prac (Tex.Civ.App. writ); - Houston (1970). tice p. 5.19 For variance § Gribble, (Tex. Blackstock v. S.W.2d pleadings proof between the be fa Civ.App. e.). writ n. r. ref’d - Eastland tal, substantial, the variance must be mis There certainly thing not one in this leading prejudiced departure. Or record to indicate that the Agen Butler, (Tex.Civ. gаin v. cy was misled pleadings Stone. writ); App. Glens Falls —Austin Neither nor the Agency contend in Vetrano, Company Insurance 347 S.W.2d their they briefs that were misled. (Tex.Civ.App. writ). 769 no — Houston Next majority the a special asserts that Here, showing Lipner there was no that allegation pleading in a over a gen- controls surprised by was misled the introduction or can, therefore, eral allegation and it be or that such evidence was of such evidence inferred the meaning that the term prejudicial departure plead a from Stone’s “squared away” specific is limited by ing, particularly in view of the fact that allegation exceptions “there will be no in (which will evidence of like effect be set out the Title Policy”, to coupled which it was later) was admitted later into evidence citing Milam, Company Monsanto v. 494 together objection without with the fact (Tex.Sup.1973) S.W.2d 534 and Richardson opportunity Lipner that had avoid v. First National Life surprised employing Company, or Insurance being misled 419 obtaining (Tex.Sup.1967). S.W.2d These special exception use of in further 836 cases This, prior he are not particularities point. to trial. failed The in allegations Stone’s variance, being to do. no fatal pleading Lipner There that replied every- that overruling Lipner’s trial not err in court did thing was squared away cannot be con- objection admitting evidence into sidered a general allegation. Unquestiona- told him. testimony Lipner of what Stone’s bly, allegation it is an specific (a of a fact statement) making up one of the elements majority pleadings The holds that Stone’s of fraud. nothing general There is about judgment support are insufficient such allegation. evidence) (even is if there misrepresentation of a ma- allegation that “ to close the terial fact which induced Stone . fraudulent statement i. e. . . majority based its deci- transaction. everything squared concerning was away ” technicality sion on the that statement the pipelines and the introduc- was by Lipner “everything squared tion of showing such same evidence away”, coupled with his acts constituted same, together with the context which representations that “the title the land said statement was made is some evidence was not burdened representation of a material and I would allegation not an of fact but easements” is hold that properly it was admitted into pleader a mere conclusion and as evidence trial court. be Even if this such cannot considered. Even if be it can held that a fatal vari- true, not, legal it is conclusion which ance precluding admissibility exists pleader’s ad- pleaded permissible, if the (which cannot), the above evidence it other Bond, misled it. White v. versary is not evidence character of like was later intro- (Tex.Civ.App. 355 S.W.2d - Amarillo therefore, objection, imply- duced without grounds, other rev’d on ing try the plead- consent to issues outside (1962); Employers’ Texas Insurance As ings. testimony, Mr. later intro- Price, (Tex.Civ. sociation v. 336 S.W.2d objection, duced out as fol- writ); without set Rule App. Eastland, - true in lows: particularly This is T.R.C.P.

7Q Stone, correct, ample said to there “Q (Lipner) it evidence And was away? Lipner’s representations reck- everything squared were made knowledge lessly without of their truth Joe that he and (Lipner) A He said positive and as a assertion. the confusion. Weil had resolved ease- now where the That he knew party It is the Texas rule when They not in were. ments positive representation that a fact makes Words purchased. that I him, being is known to the same a material to that effect.” could knowledge about which accurate fact ascertained, representations the above and if such majority attempts to discard false, adding positive to a and active asserting are amounts evidence effect”, damages. he is qualified fraud liable phrase “words Shear, (Tex.Civ.App. testimony being no more Harris 177 S.W. particular this writ) meaning of —Austin cited interpretation and cases than reasoning him. This therein. statement to Lipner’s no merit.

has support It is not essential to generally law the applicable This Court sets out making action fraud that one of it we should remain conscious representation knew it was false false throughout, being this that in an instructed Pipe time at the it was made. Jumonville case, indulge every Co., must infer- verdict we Lumber Machinery and Co. Haslam the may properly that be drawn from (Tex.Civ.App. ence 129 S.W.2d 386 — Beaumont against Missouri, the trial 1939, writ); evidence the action of K Ry. no & T Co. the judge withdrawing (Tex.Civ. case from Maples, Texas v. 162 S.W. 426 jury instructing ref’d). and a verdict in favor writ If one App. — Dallas Agency Lipner against his Stone. states as of his own knowl material facts act to majority viewing edge, by the above evidence which another is induced to that, detriment, reply is no defense indulging seems to be inferences his to is, false, the which were against Lipner, although representations instead of Ap- making these them believe them to be improper. person under circumstances review, Bourland, proper rules of true. Gibbens v. 145 S.W. plying appellate evidence, 1912, writ); reviewing (Tex.Civ.App. after all of I Antonio — San 255-258; 21(a),(b), (c), pp. would hold that there is some evidence of 37 C.J.S. Fraud § 17; 37 Lipner value that made a materi- 25 Tex.Jur.2d Fraud and Deceit probative § representation false. Deceit 204. al to Stone that was Am.Jur.2d Fraud and §§ being that November It established that there was some The evidence reflects on representation by examining attorney evidence a material chief Stone, Lipner Agency prepared to which was a written title unquestionably ques- false, we to see there that the easements next look whether which showed to any Lipner that knew said were the title on evidence tion encumbrances false states he never representations subject Lipner tract. statements or them, attorney, nor examining or there he made whether consulted with when opinion prior to recklessly made he review the title that he them did any evidence statements to Stone making questioned truth and any knowledge their without erro- shows majority 1971. evidence assertion. positive as a lawsuit, all this pertinent no evidence that at times to there was neously holds Agency’s state- were certain records in the knowingly made a false there Lipner “take-off” Lipner commonly office referred to as to or that ment Lipner had would have “recklessly” without cards if read representation pipe- shown the positive particular truth and as a existence knowledge of its Lipner there line that he did Assuming for moment easements. stated assertion. prior at time he Lipner had actual not look the cards was no evidence that to falsity representations of his statements made Stone. knowledge of the One question: must then what and set it out in his title opinion basis did to the title Lipner making representa- have in those agency. Lipner was the so to Lipner speak.1 tions? called upon Lipner testified that he Stone and told relied him given facts which were to that “he cоnfused as to where him his friend (Weil) pipelines (as were.” This confusion can reason- that such reliance it now out) ably be inferred from all of the proves evidence was mistake in judgment. Lipner. If Lipner available had actual If it was true Lipner relied what knowledge the title examiner’s opinion disregarded Weil had told him and title cards, had seen the “take-off” this knowl- opinion prepared by his chief title examiner edge Lipner’s would account confusion. disregarded the take-off cards located Lipner Where else would have had knowl- office, easily available in his edge the easements were on sub- in fact “recklessly represent” positive fact ject causing him be confused. knowledge without of its truth. His cards and what the title examiner recklessness, Concerning the issue our pointed pipelines there were out stated that Legislature Texas in enacting has Article Lipner’s subject property. over the friend Ann., 9.34 Tex.Ins.Code set re- out several (Weil) over pipelines said there were quirements which must met before a (from subject property. Since knew policy or contract of title insurance can be inference) above where the provides pertinent written. Article 9.34 were, represent but chose part as follows: 1) 2) knowledge, he had no such either: of Insurability “Determination rely what going that he was his friend policy No or contract title insurance him, represen- Weil had told fraudulent shall be written unless and until the title It perpetrated tation was in either event. (a) company insurance has caused Lipner’s Agency’s advantage was to and the search of be made from title It was after the real estate deal close. prepared plant evidence from an abstrаct Lipner to that these facts were available ,. (b) has caused to be made a “It Lipner called Stone and said is true that determination of insurability title in there was confusion. I found out accordance with sound title underwriting there were easements on the property. ” practices exceptions There will made.” The Surely, the Legislature of Texas in enacting knowledge Lipner, actual the by reckless legislation the above did not intend by coupled disregard Lipner, by of the truth president of a title company rely should on damage, completed to his reliance what his tell friends him over what he could the fraud. have opinion determined from his own title necessary, for an ac- The fourth element readily or take-off cards which were availa- fraud, that statement was made tion in to ble him. I believe that such action with it should be acted 'the intention Lipner relying entirely upon Weil and not upon by party usually other at not title or take-off cards is issue, since it can be inferred from raising

evidence fact issue toas whether made. reckless nature of statement Lipner’s statements to Stone were reckless- However, ample raising there is evidence ly making made without any inquiry Lipner pipe- such told Stone that the issue. their truth. line not the property, easements were

There is still a further inference this, knew, of fraud he Lipner when told or a Stone known, raised the evidence. The Agency’s chief reasonable would have person examiner found the rely defect the title on those statements. Stone would president Lipner principal Lawyers Eli 1. was stock- Title had a contract Insurance Lawyers Agency Corpus Title undersign policies holder of Corporation insurance Christi, Corporation. a Texas Wilson was the Corporation as Title Insurance an employee chief title examiner and of Law- County. agent exclusive for Nueces Corpus Lipner yers Christi. easements, I evidence was encumbered with that there was no majority insists relied on not have entered into the con- any statements would that Stone This is Lipner closing. at time of tract.” clearly so. The evidence shows recognized have that his Lipner must property the contract the sale of after actions, likely were to induce statements question signed parties, been all had attempt Lipner did. did not they because concerning raised ease- several closing from the deal stop Stone sought received assur- ments. Stone later. days Lipner ance from that there were no ease- would Generally speaking, whether Stone just closing prior ments on the land representa- have acted in the absence of the transaction. not he relied tions is the test whether or “Q right. just prior All Now here, is clear evidence thereon. But closing of this on March transaction rely It is not Lipner. did that Stone 12th of have you necessary that there be a statement even or Mr. Lipner conversations with Mr. acts as to his reliance where Stone’s Stone 18.639 Weil about in this relied. way, Either Stone show the same. acres of land? infer that majority would have us Mr. Lipner A . called me original talking closing about me if I any pipeline asked knew real estate closing instead of contract easements on I only has the statement deal. One to read words were purchasing, my to see that all of the conversations of facts that, Lord, Eli, to the effect ‘My exe- after the contract had been were made anything I (Lipner) don’t know of werе talk- cuted and that Stone and job. there. You’re your out That’s This is closing the ing about transaction. supposed being that’s be the one play on words. just a title,’and hung paid to search the he up. Shortly Joe Weil thereafter day within The evidence shows that up came and told me the office representa- after made these two Eli was confused and that Stone, the (the statement) to above tions straightened had it all out. That virtually undisputed It closing occurred. there wasn’t easements there. known that logical, that had only any exceptions There wouldn’t be question, land in the easements on the policy. Lipner I called Eli place. would have taken closing that, confirm That was and he did. acted clearly that Stone The evidence shows the reason into the why I entered Lipner’s statements. reliance ” sup- contract. (Emphasis to have jury should have had a chance plied.) question! 37 Fraud answered this C.J.S. 22a, b, There was other relied evidence that Stone 26. § § Lipner just closing: before element, being last that Stone Now, “Q par- at the this closing time of damage or to such re- injury suffered due transaction, you ticular evi- sufficiently by the supported liance is way rely (by on these statements undisputed that suffered dence. It is Lipner) just describ- you have damage of the exist- considerable because ed? subject ing easements and on the land, 1) the (answer Stone) on Mr. which were: among A I relied tract redesigned hundred had to be and he lost the Lipner park and Mr. Weil one 2) redesign; such necessary If have been income from percent. there would doubt, in the mind there was a reduction in the number any question Stone, Jr., he was which in turn a reduction in spaces C. caused of Charles commitment; 3) F.H.A. and the de- purchasing piece crease in value due 7-acre tract

the easements thereon. In re OF ‍‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‍GUARDIANSHIP Jonell HAIR, N.C.M.

Honoring the inferences which must be verdict, indulged against the instructed I No. 7759. would hold that the record shows that all Texas, Court of Civil Appeals of against the elements of fraud in the action Beaumont. Lipner and the were raised both pleadings and evidence that a re- April 1, 1976. Lipner mand of the cause of action against Rehearing May Denied 1976. should be submitted for their jury final determination. all judges

Since three agree there is

evidence of fraud in Stone’s of action cause

against Weil and that such be re- should trial,

versed remanded for I believe

that Stone’s cause of action based fraud

against Lipner the Agency also should

be reversed and remanded for trial still

another additional reason. The evidence is readily

clear and in fact is admitted that Eli

Lipner and Joe Weil were They friends.

enjoyed a close relationship throughout the

entire transaction concerning Stone. If fraud,

Weil is to be re-tried for circum-

stantial evidence is overwhelming Lip-

ner should be along a co-defendant

Weil in such new trial. and Weil together

worked they each had the gain inducing go

most to Stone to ahead buy property. encumbered only

I concur in the result reached con-

cerning Lawyers Title Corpora- Insurance

tion and Joe B. IWeil. would reverse that

part judgment which decrees that nothing

Stone take Eli Insurance Agency Corpus

Christi, Inc. and remand the same

trial court a new trial with B. Joe Weil. III, Morrison, Liberty, ap-

Richard R. pellant. Stratton,

C. Liberty, Bruce for appellee. notes it not been for Weil’s by the field had hereby against of the costs is Joe assessed representations which were made before Weil. B. The costs incurred in this Court November 1970. are taxed Stone and ½ Weil. V2 that the evidence introduced We conclude PART, AFFIRMED IN REFORMED IN Weil contro- against action raised in Stone’s REFORMED, PART AFFIRMED AND AS jury. for the There verted issues fact AND REMANDED IN REVERSED AND could dif- are areas where reasonable minds PART. that all of the ele- record shows fer. The Weil against of fraud in the action ments NYE, (dissenting). Justice Chief raised, conclusively and does not show I I also respectfully dissent. withdraw rely or act Stone my original Dissenting Opinion and substi- alleged made to him representations Opinion majori- following tute the since the Weil, judgment that Weil is entitled to ty changed has its reasons and its decision trial erred of law. The court as matter trial which affirming court’s action instructed Weil’s motion for an sustaining granted against an instructed verdict 8, 9, are 10 and 11 Points verdict. Agency. favor Eli and his sustained. case, verdict this is instructed Since ALL AGAINST THE ACTIONS may indulge every must inference that we DEPENDANTS be drawn from evidence properly sup- judge action of the trial against nothing in the record There is jury exemplary withdrawing case from in his claims for ports a verdict Stone. Echols instructing the defendants in damages against any of

Case Details

Case Name: Stone v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corp.

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Mar 31, 1976

Citation: 537 S.W.2d 55

Docket Number: 998

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.