This аppeal is taken by the defendants from an adverse judgment and is presented upon the judgment-roll alone.
The points urged as ground for reversal rest uрon the ruling of the trial judge in refusing to sustain a demurrer interposed by the defendants to the second amended complaint of the plaintiff. The grounds of that dеmurrer to be here considered are: (1) That said complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action as against defеndants or either of them; (2) that there was a misjoinder in that appellant Johnson was improperly included as a defendant in the action.
The plaintiff аlleged in his complaint that in September, 1919, a written agreement was entered into between plain
*741
tiff and the two Garzas, whereby plaintiff agreed to buy, and said defendants agreed to sell, a certain pool-hall and business with the furnishings and fixtures for the sum of $700. Other terms and conditions were alleged in the complаint to be as follows: “Plaintiff to execute his promissory note for the sum of $350 payable to said defendants Garza, sixty days after date and deliver the same together with $350 in cash to the defendant E. L. Johnson; and defendants Garza to execute to plaintiff a bill of sale of said business, furnishings, fixtures and equipment and delivеr same to the said E. L. Johnson, all of which were to be held by the said E. L. Johnson for a period of time not to exceed seven days; that within said seven days dеfendants Garza were to secure a lease from the owner of the building in which said business, furnishings, fixtures and equipment were located in favor of plaintiff for a period of one year from and after date of said sale, at a monthly rental of $40 and deliver same to the said E. L. Johnson; and upon the delivery оf said lease to the said E. L. Johnson within the time aforesaid and not otherwise, the said E. L. Johnson to deliver said $350 in cash and said promissory note to the said defendants Garza and the said bill of sale and the said lease to plaintiff; and if the said lease was not so delivered to the said E. L. Johnson within the said ten days’ timе the said E. L. Johnson should redeliver to plaintiff the said promissory note and $350 in cash upon demand of plaintiff so to do, and to return said bill of sale to said defendants Garza.” Plaintiff further alleged that he executed his promissory note and delivered the same to Johnson, together with $350 in cash, upon the express condition that it should not be delivered to the Garzas until the lease referred to in the allegations quoted had been secured and delivered to Jоhnson for the plaintiff; that Johnson was a practicing attorney and was fully informed by all the parties of the conditions upon which the note and cash were deposited with him, and that he knew of the agreement and the terms requiring him to dispose of the money and papers in the manner aforesaid. It is then alleged that the Garzas did not, within ten days or at all, secure the lease for the plaintiff which they had agreed to furnish. It is further alleged that defendant Johnson, nоtwithstanding the con-'
*742
ditions of the agreement under which the deposit was made with him, and notwithstanding that plaintiff “repeatedly notified” said Johnson not to deliver the note and cash to the defendants, did before the expiration of ten days deliver the note and money of the plaintiff to defendants Garza, in violаtion of the agreement and in violation “of his instructions given him by both plaintiff and defendants Garza.” Further allegations of the complaint set out that plaintiff hаd repeatedly demanded of defendants Johnson and Garzas that they return to him his note and money, which demand had at all times been refused. Prayer for judgmеnt was, first, for the sum of $350 with legal interest thereon; second, that the defendants be required to deliver up the promissory note; that the same be canceled and that, if this could not be procured to be done, then that plaintiff have judgment for the sum of $350 with legal interest, and for costs of suit. The court made its findings determining the facts in accordance with the allegations of the complaint, with the additional findings that plaintiff had tendered back to the defendants all the personal property that he had received, and had offered to make accounting for all proceeds of the business during the ^ime lie had had possession, and that the defendants Garza had disposed of the promissory note of the plaintiff. The judgment was for the principal sum demanded, with the proviso that, if within ten days defendant should file a bond to indemnify plaintiff against liability upon the promissory note which had been converted by them, then the amоunt of the judgment should be reduced to the sum of $362.25, which sum represented a recovery of the cash payment made by the plaintiff under Ms agreement with Garza, together with interest. Having the judgment-roll only to look to, we must assume, of course, that the evidence was ample to sustain all the findings made by the trial judge. We think that the complaint stated sufficient facts upon which to predicate a judgment for damages against the defendants. The defendants in effect wеre charged with having converted the property of the plaintiff in violation of their duty under the contract and were hence liable for all damages which the plaintiff might sustain, with interest from the date of conversion.
The judgment is affirmed.
Conrey, P. J., and Shaw, J., concurred.