Waterman Lumber & Supply Co. v. Robins

SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER pay community ow’s interest provided by Dig. Paseh. 1363. art. al. & et SUPPLY CO. WATERMAN LUMBER cases, [Ed. Note.—For other see Husband and et al. ROBINS Wife, Dig. 1003-1007, 917-924, §§ Dig. Cent. 896. Appeals (Court Texarkana. Texas. of Civil 1032-1045; 265, 272, §§ 276.*] Dec. April 9, Re- Motion for On (§ 276*) Community Husband and Wife April 1913.) — hearing, 24, Property — — Death of Sale Husband Judgment (§ 518*) Probate- —Order Interest —Burden of Wife’s Proof. Collateral Attack. claiming One "title to a interest wife’s appointing probate an Claim that community property, hus- under a sale authorizing non, administrator sale tificate, bonis de administrator, band’s executor or the bur- has headlight cer- balance of of an unlocated proving property den of to. that the sold probate jurisdiction without pay community debts. cer- the estate of deceased because cases, [Ed. other Note.—For see Husband finally closed, awas tificate holder had been collateral attack on the order. Dig. Dig. Wife, 1032-1045; and § 276.*] Cent. Dec. §§ Judgment, cases, see Note.—For other [Ed. (§ 276*) Community 8.- Husband and Wife Dig. Dig. 961, 518.*] Dec. Cent. §§ Property — Sale of Interest Widow’s Judgment 497*) (§§ 489, —Jurisdiction Parties. Subject-Matter Attack. heirs, — Collateral Neither a decedent’s nor her widow when rendered A parties can be to- a her commu- sale of subject-matter jurisdiction no nity property by in the common any time; open but at to collateral attack legal representative husband’s in the adminis- jurisdiction such a court want tration of properly is- unless her jurisdiction from the rec- must ascertained discharge taken to debts with which proved alone, aliunde. ord and cannot be marriage- stands it dissolution on of the Judgment, cases, relation, [Ed. other see Note.—For so that oth- disposed Dig. Dig. 924, 937, §§, Dec. §§ Cent. er she is probate 497.*] bound recting of the orders di- approving a sale thereof. Secondary (§ 178*) 3. Evidence —Best cases, [Ed. Note.—For other see Husband Evidence —Lost Records —Contents. Dig. Wife, 1032-1045; Dig. and § Cent. §§ Dec. an administra- Where an order 276.*] authorizing tor a sale of de bonis non and headlight unlocated balance certificate Community (§|276*)— 9. Husband and Wife trespass try attacked want Property — Sale of Widow’s Interest. jurisdiction ed appear- it community Where a widow’s interest in husband’s probate proceedings in the adminis- has been sold ad- lost, parol tration evidence of the pay may debts, presumed, ministrator to original records limited to the contents of was contrary, in the absence of evidence to in. admissible; doings acts support community of the debts exist- and constituting in the administration of the estate ed; presumption but such is one of fact and to show the contents not of there and would not be where- of the record inadmissible. agreement anwas to the- Evidence, cases, contrary. [Ed. Note.—For other Dig. Dig. 580-594; Dec. §§ § 178.*] Cent. Note.—For see Husband and JEd.Wife, Dig. Dig. 1032-1045; 37*)— Dec. (§ and Administrators Executors Discharge —Final Order —Administrator Appoint. Authority Bonis Non — De (§ 276*) Community 10. Husband and Wife A final order Property certain Pay —Sale to Debts. absolutely an estate insufficient trators of Where non administrator de bonis negative authorized the bal- sell thereafter non; tate had been an administrator de bonis headright ance of an unlocated balance of a nothing es- certificate, and the records in the office- closed. lost, had been evidence of a witness who had short, exception Executors clerk with the Dig. 267-278; Administrators, §§ intermission from 1800 to administra-, process § 37.*] Dec. time the estate inwas tion, claims such estate had' 82*) Presumptions—Judi (§ 5. Evidence been filed his term of officewas inadmis- Proceedings. cial impeach judgment appointing sible the- Where an administrator de bonis non non; administrator de bonis but was admissi- discharge original appointed ministrators, ted ble to show whether there were may unless rebut- obligations outstanding at the time closing record that the pointment. aside, set was_ the administration see Husband and continued, when such es- is Wife, 1032-1045; Dec. subsequently sential to sustain recognizing the continuance of the administra- tion. (§ 276*) 11. Husband and Wife —Adminis Expenses — — Community- eases, Evidence, tration Taxes Obligations. expenses Taxes and of administration ac- (§,§265, 272, 276*)— 6. Husband and Wife cruing after the death of an intestate Community Property — Control Hus community obligations for which a widow’s Community. band-Dissolution interest in a land certificate could be sold. During the life of husband he has control [Ed. Note.—For Cent. management Husband and and Wife, 276.*] dispose any purpose §- it for he sees fit; his death is dissolv- ed, and the holds her half widow interest as Appeal Court, Shelby from District Coun- tenant in common with the children suc- ty; Judge. Buford, W. C. portion, their father’s ceed to and the adminis- Action Jane trators of the Robins and others husband’s estate wid- topic Dig. Key-No. Rep’r *Fof other rases see same and section NUMBERin &Am. Series & Indexes. & SUPPLY LUMBER CO. ROBINS Company Supply (4) & Waterman That suc- Lumber administrators were Judgment plaintiffs, by Dysart, and others. and defendants ceeded the notes ry, during Short who collected and by appeal. claims, Affirmed. and shown the invento- accepted War, the Civil Con- and n Davis& Garrison, Center, Davis, J. T. of money payment same; federate of Bowers, Houston, Greer, of Nall of and & year about the 1866 or 1868 filed their Todd, appellants. Beaumont, Oliver J. showing final account in court appellees. Beaumont, collections, paid their and the Confederate money by registry them into the HODGES, appellees heirs The are the J. among the court for distribution the heirs wife, Buckley and of whom of John both Buckley. proceeds John The court then years They many ago. died suit of 646 acres instituted in this subdivision as follows: “And the appellant to recover a tract fully administered, said estate was and Shelby coun- land situated in administrators and their bondsmen patented by ty, unlocated virtue an discharged, and no new administrators were certificate, original of which balance of appointed, any specific Buckley then por- nor was order was issued to John A (open) any pur- patent made said estate was located and tion of the certificate issued unlocated pose, specifically nor was A made in 1847. certificate for him closed; declaring the said was issued balance Defeé, lifetime, by L. order was J. effect two admin- his but was sold purporting acting say, the administrator of the then act as istrators is to —that Buckley, Dysart T. Winslow to W. their Short filed final ac- —had administrators, the that the in land thereafter located was as such counts account was controversy. It is approved, admitted said appellant Dysart chain of discharged holds under as such administra- Winslow, and Dysart has whatever transfers title tors, and the said Short and released, and their sureties were released passed De- made him at the sale fee. obligations their bond from as administrators of said estate.”' The ease was before with- tried jury, out a and a award- entered (5) finds that about The court further appellees one half of land to the and year L. husband of one of the 1873 J. appellant. par- half the other Both daughters Buckley, John his own complain judgment. appel- The ties application was administrator of passed lant sale contends that the Defee Buckley, and after his the estate John entire to Wins- certificate appointment sued ; low while the insist that the contending bondsmen, that Short and' pointment of Defee accounted for the estate of was John by them; that this was- claims collected suit passed The tes- his sale no title whatever. compromised parties, and the amount Shelby timony county, shows that courthouse against Short and rendered together with all of the rec- Dysart paid was only paper ords, in 1882. The was burned paid to the heirs of John relating to this case which was or record May 1880,. (6) about That Defee on or inventory preserved purporting an list of claims an bal- filed to sell unlocated been filed the widow to have headright theretofore ance of the issued certificate Buckley son of John Buckley, and an to John request appellant At the the trial authorizing sale; court filed court which we here his conclusions of fact and to in that W. T. sale was thereafter give the substance: Winslow, and that the defendants the title (1) That land in ac- hold government quired from the Buck- John by that But the court adds: Winslow sale. having patented by ley, same virtue convey only purporting in- sale “Said duplicate headright certificate issued Buckley in said cer- terest of the John him for an unlocated balance. tificate.” (2) plaintiffs are That heirs of remaining findings and conclusions Buckley cent, wife, representing per and his literally as follows: law filed of all of the heirs left That John them. certif- finds that said “Seventh. (3) died granted to John icate was year leaving consisting community headright, and 1,400 about acres of land and more than wife, that no his said $5,000 him and cash solvent securi- convey ties; said wife- son, made to Buckley, that his Turner his heirs, surviving certificate, title of widow, Buckley, or the her in said Elizabeth April, 1860, inventory been authorized un- could not have and same 4th of property filed paying coun- less it ty, debts of the said whatever finds that this estate. SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER payihg duly acknowledged deeds was not made for and recorded from any community W. T. Winslow to the 646 acres of land controversy. That the balance of unlocated of Law. “Conclusions originally said certificate issued Buckley amounting “First. The court that the title to the finds to 646 acres was sold question, Defee, acting in far said J. so as the interest L. as administrator of Buckley concerned, Buckley of Mrs. remained the estate of the said John as afore- pursuance said, times, Shelby in fected af- in her heirs at all and was not coun- ty purported probate court, duly which orders were Buckley, trators of John deceased. entered of and that said sale of said duly the title to “Second. The court finds that unlocated balance of said certificate was reported, report the Buckley one-half John made and that duly in remained in same said certificate confirmed and' the adminis- death, title, in his to the heirs unless a is now trator of ordered to make which said order good sale, report same, and sufficient title the confirma- passed by Defee, duly administra- same was J. L. tion of such sale were of record tor, May 15, 1880, and in to W. T. Winslow on the minutes of the court of find that as to the the court does Tex.” From county, these admissions it Buckley appears interest of said John to be conceded that Defee was conveyance. passed by pointed pro- said sufficient title and acted under orders of the finds, respects regular prop- as a matter of “Third. court bate court in all filing erly final account entered of record. approval by Dysart, and its [1] This suit is in the usual form of an finally discharging said trespass and the order try title, action of to the and the an releasing and their them presents only administrators general issue; swer hence appointing no additional bondsmen and ministrators, the attack here made the order of the open specifically nor Defee is collateral. law, oper- estate, not, as a matter of said It is now well settled the orders and the said to close said ate remained Defee was decrees of same courts are entitled to the 1878, when until about unclosed sanctity usually is accorded to thereof, appointed administrator general jurisdiction, all courts of and the authority appoint the court had and that said Defee administrator. presumptions sup same will be in port given their conclusiveness plaintiffs that thé “Fourth. The court finds judgments of the district court. It is con respective in- recover their are entitled to tended court interest of one-half Shelby county power terests or au Buckley, reason said thority Mrs. sale Defee, because the estate Defee the defendants previously of administered one-half interest by Dysart owners said Buckley, the undivided and Short and the was the administration closed. If that the facts are made to be true deceased.” appear proper law,that manner, it follows as a matter of The correctness of these conclusions purchased Winslow, nothing, Defee, particulars took questioned by several parties both appellant, claiming and the appeal appropriate assign- to this him, has no title. cross-assignments ments and of error. [2] A rendered at Logically, proposition a time when the first to be con- power subject- court has no to act on the disposing assign- the) sidered ments is that which of these various jurisdiction matter over which he assumes questions validity open void and appointment to a collateral attack at of Defee’s bonis this in by as administrator de ascertaining time. But the method of non of the If authority lack of that a certained from appointment want of was void for lack of general jurisdiction it, must be as the court to make then sale made the record alone. It has to the certificate repeatedly been can be held in this state of which the land in virtue only by inspection located; appellees, done and the the heirs of judgment itself, together accompany and his with would be its entitled to Bradley Love, record. land recover all of the mere tres- Burns, passer. Martin Murchison v. v. contains, The statement of facts White, among others, following admissions of Crawford McDonald, parties: 33 S. fact located balance of 646 “That W. 325. In the un- White, supra, Murchison acres was court said: sold analysis “It believed careful J. L. of who was then sole administrator subject Buckley, on this cases collateral the estate of John to W. T. Wins- May proceeding, 17, 1SS0, plaintiffs only contingency low do jurisdiction not admit make such in which the of to áet that the court had domestic court general jurisdiction, of said Defee as ad- which has assumed might by ministrator. That the a case over which defendants hold under law LUMBER & CO. v. SUPPLT ROBIN'S tion did ciples the quiry fendant record take become settled rule of law 607]; Denman, in first administrators district, probate, rendering upon diction, forming, administration moved In Crawford Murchison v. 16 19 S. W. 778 51 testimony Parker testified Shelby Rep. appointed, instituted fore, ciples ords of dered it the trial. The test over the title record for the lidity ice whatever ment lic all to concerning property rights, apply Brown short Judge aof written tack son, ^[3] analogous Ball, show-by [16 policy practical rule person, following 79 it jurisdiction seized and The destruction 370]; period Heck precludes inquiry of th'e have said: Am. St. shows Parker and county Tex. in fact forbidding proceeding not attach or and John Shelby county prior 1072; Hardy died 52 public policy, impossible well Christie, has been rendered to applicable v. annulling evidence dehors Martin v. to and equally long contract, purposes, rendering domestic court of [31 Tex. 603 was rendered military judgment; vary ‘‘There courts, White, Martin, from 1860 to settled rules judgment Rep. only that he was my sold, short of tlie McDonald, to 15 been acted the him. the introduction aliunde 27 Tex. 73 all civil Buckley’s is held valid. This probably or ,in to its rendition. There- E. B. Wheeler. questioned the well settled justice 915]; witnesses S. W. recollection is Turner St. estate of 54 Tex. authorities. We except he is, however, to same his property in in such contradict Burns, into produce testimony: the rule [36 Logically, proceedings Beaty, Rep. subject-matter same. These judgments must estate. Mrs. John without where particular 1876 Fowler 682 officers courts, and Am. facts dehors the grounds opinion the as county supra, after wife were the not, correcting, 80].” to therefore, precludes [84 to collateral at- important is when the record, in have its [23 record that protect them Rep. proceeding E. Wheeler testified be allowed this state. aforesaid, and 1882 ren Am. in a the inva- Williams of verbal 13 W. she jurisdic- personal Am. “Turner testified clerk another Justice case.” after Judge terms Simp S. juris- ly. a de- quote judg- were prin- prin- 730]; serv- were have pub- con- about 1871 on their own rule this 677, 562, was “The rec in- erate St. re as a made istrators of the John administered on. that their had been notes. ministration continued.” On —wanted to be wrong all the charged collected on notes 1868. money, ment the administration was it or 1868. trator of resigned; tion he said: D. discharging to pointed introduce prepared trial is purports Capt. they stated does not than their recollections of what during He bate not the original prohate ed If on the to as of B.E. Much of what both of these witnesses only discharge them, as true the B. M. procuring rule, further former This administration E. filed. I judge, there was some had made those records, final order discharged along hands some money, ‘Short produced the close never been closed. Short and E. B. They My the administration then settlement administrator of question B. resigned, them. wanted to and filed Defee and to collecting that at the time of Defee’s last-named administrators state .recollection course of the administration. however, records were burned represented them stated estate of evidentiary reproduce simply and Mr. do one instance discharge recollections relieved, “I pretend a mistake in discharging D. not know how After records now as administrators absolute- entered, clerk. that Defee’s considerable think Short and Capt. Judge get was never closed. Confederate renders contents appears final the war it all before us. notes in Confederate I think talk Captain some time shut of it themselves the contents of the was in to be Dysart value in that can be looked trial Wheeler is the application this was Confed- Buckley; order does this witness it where that dtill were asked as an estate.” he knew anything cross-examina- collecting Judge Parker, permissible does the war the court dis- long M. learned estate. D. was entered predecessors have money money, being open, discharging passing open; they turning and could in 1867 or transpired year M. ‘Short The fact appeared he not alter contents. on some attorney that ad- appoint- old correct, that he Dysart admin- had in accept- Defee. which Judge being says: more J. L. them were 1867 Just pro this up- It SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER mean power, circumstances Harrison, probate after an the order Bell, the continuance involved, rett, last case cited is one of those relied the administration such a terson, other send v. minister and to close the administration sumed, Even after an order has been voked to annul it had not been made. It was due course of administration of such an order was the sanction of the defeat the court and his acts ed cussing regarded, held that ministration and this order The record also was filed and citation issued. It ever, disposing McGloin as the administrator. charge that the that ministrator following order had been made with refer conclusion is that referred ministrator de bonis non of the estate of ence to the of said erly the same be James style ministration. Alexander v. closing administrators administration, previous entry presents 17 Tex. 557, not sufficient to The stated who rendered the Buckley. all to make other orders in the further McGloin, the title of unless rebutted court of Colorado Munger, estate; administration of the init say extended discussion of the administration had been 65 Am. Dec. as disclosed uses the case: “In 67 Am. Dec. 693. In the case parties; of that question and he this order did not have the effect of was no operated the court discharged upon paying a final account of the settlement court to the evidence showed that admitted 335; Dancey subsequently any circumstances, detail, attending administration; It does not administration, showed 9 Tex. authority the estate McGloin. absolutely. (McGloin) deprive in question year arose as to and it cannot be now it will afterwards necessity probate court, legally continued, language: said: Defee was void. is essential to sustain administrator or executor has the burden of the minutes it administration. Town court did not have the negative afterwards subsequent bona thereafter done opinion examined and that a the records county, sometimes “Notwithstanding for filed, Justice fide Withers v. Pat by went on to ad connubial for further ad Bayne Stricklinge, whether ánd after dis control and Tbis final dis Mavorick, set Defee as ad close in that ordered that der the direction of the 1868.” “Under the seems, purchaser.” recognizing closed, we do recognized giving disregard orders of aside and in power question upon by Wheeler thereby appears account v. Gar the ad be the ad administration of though closing Henry designated costs.” Judge or not after when case, not, prop show And how or with This pre just dis thé close facts sufficient in In prove tive claiming rights depend upon establish his wife's proving property of her community words, of the husband’s property, pose mon with the ing community his finding ow held their father’s ed the the sale of the certificate It to whatever was letters was the appeared of the administrator of the estate of John or did not collateral - The rule seems to be ^[7] [6] The next exacting Butler, the this state do conveying follows from by the only special power purpose chain. The husband’s administrator wife, sale husband’s estaté could discharge necessity shown to shown for he saw fit. But when question depends here, interest under a sale all community interest ' purchaser? doctrine to that effect. that the Buckley he, her cases is but the the wife’s all general sense, was made for the 49 W. 367. parties and could partnership administration, the husband’s proceeding if paying debts. B. D. art. 1363. In other- the conditions fordid contingencies. no more than is wife’s half S. that one management not become assets would have been the record was her portion. the court." only paying community Buckley’s community of Wadham. But the estate debts. It children, such further administration. question presented links requiring that the certificate interest as a property might property only such a that estate. administrator half the record does not dis- perhaps dispose as the The that he had the who claims was dissolved the wid Wee the The administrator of Roy Whitaker, of John During The rule announced invalidate the seems exercise the fully administered, makes who succeeded to- correct answer to- (Italics ours.) unless presumption, a claimant by Defee'pass purpose existed husband, legally legal representa To well he v. purpose through whether or not tenant debts. entirely silent, administration generally his death the sold for the require IJucltley for present, the lifetime- obligations. the further established community proper be conced the hands husband’s in which exercised Defee as complete necessity belonged any pur is: Did interest title to certain express- dispose- further- Moody paying- of the- whose com pay Our de- for the- un- all to- a, (cid:127) LUMBER, & SUPPLY ROBINS CO. n ofthe husband’s *of ans, 307. .and not of n prevail conclusive, rto the sets n .rightful exercise of appointed administrator. n stands estate were property Mrs. (cid:127)any (cid:127)she (cid:127)specially granted sideration of ley held the office appointed. The the pointing matter of to testimony may not tion come munity debts, munity obligations outstanding ties to the expenses than of his mining non, it in the common legal ministration v. v. protects Roy Whitaker, marriage from their mandad when ther is [9] It is [8] The wife [11] It unsupported preserving make a Wylie, Shirley, had been dead community obligations payment made for their representative privies difficult But this found, testified that collateral appointment. It cannot be said that no more contrary. may properly whether this an infraction of judgments, had been Defee may of the administration to be death of John relation. expenses short production prima land titles. filed true and will payment sale of her are bound security 347, directing or public tracing face impeaching or her heirs presumption is after the dissolution bound or not as administrator witness county impossible. attack. property intermission from 1860 to those stranger facie In representative. 620, 19 15 S. supra. his estate fact, have been chargeable wrongfully Civ. When payment, policy of the decedent’s the case before be considered private years lapse evidence. such an administrator not of the titles there were taxes and satisfactory by judgments. his term. debts with case there were clerk with rightfully that there were It App. 223, claims the taxes Judge Parker, power on the W. Only existence S. W. the orders tranquility would when 'Defee be can be made course of approving a sale when Defee was operates for the disposed sale in through 275; this conclusion Hensel contract. admissible for proof the husband’s will often judgment permitted taken favor many years parties at the John Buck 856; Stipe rule While their would not ord of the be whose taken It Auerbach 76 de in deter accruing evidence question purpose has be powers merely an ad us the is not of the excep as as paid; bonis face, com Keg com fact, Mrs. part who Nei- sold. par con this her ap the trial court which is itself would be in accord with the authorities mony nounced. therefore be affirmed. tions for further administration thereafter was void. We Ludlow v. proved cited and records show and had curred judge substitute those then isted for which as a relied tion tention But the ny ministration administrator de bonis to sustain sold, parol, from the dence shows Dec. cited tion that court is being unsupported, rendered erty Moore, as nounced. and stitute purports to disclose the contents thereof. discharged, a “But before the contents of a record can rect, of the Buckley’s Both Appellants Appellants prove adduced may opposed disposition proceedings of a court of fact, but upon above the court uses this who rendered the of the witness findings. but as not what the it must 9 Tex. Civ. introduce collateral attack concede that this been lost proceedings very appropriate in sustained On Motion for passing interest rehearing. Appellees that no justified by this appellees’ affirmed language employed by as which the Johnston, Ohio, upon is of the estate of John to the conclusions have that the court did. The disclosed cite matter predicated upon be to this 10 Enc. Ev. 842. having finding made of the the wife’s had been a novel Whatever upon of the district court will shown that it once existed favor case community assailed and we App. 514, because the once existed of record. contention proceedings the certificate trial, time Parker as to what trial court should have conclusions appeal found that the estate the record. The non, the trial court that a court as be taken as opinion Rehearing. proceeding.” should have been proposition is not fact property but what the evidence. it was think particular ques- all of the that this connection: appeal accident. in so far as of Dickson v. obligations ex- have filed for the record parol 30 S. W. 553, administered in that based insist be inferred record introduced previously finding their con- here an- resting language, here Defee had been the trial could be could assump- testimo- the rec- is cor- found, prove prop- testi- fully case, This This able sub- lost evi- mo- an- oc- be as 159 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER Principal Agent (§ 23*) Liability that estate should disclose — Sufficiency to Third Evi Persons — Defee’s before administered Evidence. dence-Circumstantial made. Such evidence Agency may by circumstan- be established not been furnished. Hence conclude that we tial evidence. correct, Principal ah [Ed. Note.—For Agent, § though harmony with one of Principal findings Agent (§ 171*) Liability fact. — Implied to Third Persons — Ratification We do not base our affirmance of the —Attempt to Enforce Contract. judgment awarding appellees of the one-half given purchaser, Where a who had a note finding land of the trial court liquidated damages a contract bind land, purported sale of the owners that he in- notified a one-half carry fused to mis- out the contract because of terest in the land certificate to We Winslow. representations agent negotiated appellants agree are inclined to sale, ing bring- the act of in thereafter the owners finding supported by is not the evidence. suit the note ratification agent. acts of the We base our affirmance of this Principal conclusion Agent, evidence, whole, taken as a sustains the trial court’s conclusion that no com- Principal Agent (§ 158*) Liability munity debt existed at the time of Agent. to Third Persons —Fraud of testimony support- sale. It The owners of land are liable for representations agent fraudulent meager, this conclusion is it is suf- whereby purchaser buy was induced to ficient, think, presump- we to overcome the any knowledge land whether arising lapse tion of fact from the mere representations or not. time that was made Principal paying community Agent, ; 589-598 Dec. §* The motions of both are overruled. Principal Agent (§ 22*) Liability —Agency— Third Person —Evidence of Agent. Declarations Agency cannot be established the dec- agent. larations of the SARGENT et al. v. BARNES. Principal (Court Appeals Agent, of Texas. Civil Austin. March 1913. On Motion for Re- Principal Agent (§ 22*) Liability hearing, 25, 1913.) June to Third Persons Evidence Declara Agent. Appeal tion of (§ 743*) Assignments and Error alleged The acts and of an statements oe Error —Reference to Record. agent, negotiations pending made while are Supreme (142 vii), Court Rule land, admissible, the sale of rescind are an action to quiring assignments of error to refer agent’s the contract fraud of the motion for new trial testimony connection with direct of the acts and complained of, which the error is does not principal statements of the and direct ply assignments charges giv- of error to the establishing agency, especially prin where the en or refused court. cipals progress present of ne cases, Appeal [Ed. Note.—For other see and gotiations. Error, Dig. Dig. 2999, 3011; § Cent. §§ Dec. Principal see 743.*] Dig. Agent, Dig. Cent. Dec. § § 22.*] Principal Agent (§ 123*) —Authori Principal Agent (§ 22*) Liability ty Agent Sufficiency oe of Evidence. Evidence—Unsigned to Third Persons — In an action to cancel a contract for the Memorandum. ground repre- sale of land on fraudulent In an action to set aside a contract for the sentations, evidence held sufficient to agent nego- sale of land for fraud of misrepresentations the one who made the sale, prepared tiated the memorandum sale expressly to make the manager authorized the land by agent signed but which was never sale, the owners knew of objection admissible, over awas acquiesced such authorization and therein. subsequent written contract entered into be- Principal [Ed. Note.—For parties, tween the where it tended to show the Dig. Agent, 420-429; Dig. agency purchaser. §§ Dec. § and corroborated the 123.*] Principal Agent Principal (§ 14*) Liability Agent, Implied Authority- to Third Persons — Appeal Sale of Land. (§ 1040*) and Error —Harmless Overruling Exceptions Where the of land owners knew that an Error — to Peti agent endeavoring pres- to sell it and were tion. days ent on the the several Where the evidence warrants the cancella- negotiation on, carried tion of written contract for the sale of land acquiesced agency ground will held to have representations, of fraudulent objection thereto, since, rulings exceptions if made no so far peti- of the court on persons rights concerned, up as the third are the tion because the facts to set a verbal con- authority one has held agent of an where tract for the sale land at variance with the agent out as his immaterial, another or know- contract written therein error ingly permitted to act as such. harmless. eases, Principal Appeal [Ed. Note.—For other Agent, 26-33; Error, topic Rep’r Key-No. *For oasessee same section Dec. &Am. Series & NUMBER Indexes collateral attack mestic on its face, into general jurisdiction, fact which do- the court. The notes administrators property, notes, and were dis-- money

Case Details

Case Name: Waterman Lumber & Supply Co. v. Robins

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Apr 9, 1913

Citation: 159 S.W. 360

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.