*1 y. BOOKMAN WYSS Tex.) (212S.W.) Disposi- Judgment &wkey;>91By wrongful detention, not 5. Consent — — their rents for Rights to Defendant — Failure tion of Mention of with recover to entitled a machines. Name. purchase price of part of on consent vendor’s a suit plaintiff! equally if clear notes, that all lien been which recited interest and with recover can properly be- were machines, can- on the a lien foreclosure of rights and interests rental or machines not recover determined, of of all were held give appears This value. not name was of a whose nothing in the verdict There remedies. specially mentioned. findings trial jury, fact this court the evidence nor for Motion On should can determine Appeal <&wkey;1116Disposition 6. and Error — rendered, therefore and we been reform this —Declaration Judgment^-Reformation. as to Void Character render by the ment as notes, In suit on vendor’s lien where some court below. vendors, owning the land state of among themselves, ment were under the consent through remand- the cause must be reversed to have lands free releases on but the matter so ordered. it has originally constituting not er- remanded. Reversed ror, and the incoherent and record does precisely parties were, not who the owned, tracts were the Court Appeals judgment void, cannot declare the reform it decree releases to those entitled. 7622.) (No. al. v. BOOKMAN Appeal Grimes Coun- Dean, S. Texas. Galveston. for Rehear On Motion 1919. Feb. B: Bookman P. and another 1919.) ing, April 3, Wyss William and others. From Assign- — Appeal plaintiffs, appeal. for &wkey;>722(l) certain defendants and Error 1. Conformity Motion Error — oe ments New Trial. for Stewarts, and Thos. P. Buf- before the without tried cases fington, оbjection is no Lewis, Navasota, H. L. .assignments cannot be considered same as contained are not the time. at same were trial and the. GRAVES, Appellees, B. P.. Craig, brought and W. S. this suit &wkey;>880(3)Right- to and Error — given May 3, vendor’s lien notes 1909, by them part payment Support Judgment Complain —Lack oe oe Frank II. Thaman in Evidence. purchase monеy appealing there was Where Mary league Austin in Gal- No. cannot raise defendants whether parties county, contempo- veston other or not raneously conveyed rested to him with reservation of a' lien to vendor’s secure wife, — Judgment Thaman and notes. many with Decree Consent Binding persons alleged who havе have Force. acquired they might notes, whatever claims on vendor’s lien suit by agreement ap- against any parts- on the un- entered held pealing Thaman, and der therefore with prior given lien terms of the (142 W. for the district and S. par- the whole of xxi), in the absence of even to This ties defendant. was also'declared particulars; decree, except form the sought against upon, and foreclosure thereof remedy respecting appel- one lants, not available other matter otherwise by the debt evidenced notes was asked op <&wkey;475(2,3) 4. Courts Lien Thaman alone. —Foreclosure —Pendency of Administration. H. Thaman Frank and answеred. notes, provision In suit on vendor’s lien attorney Fahey, N.É Hon. Pat judgment directing a consent sale of the inter- county bar, appointed Grimes of a decedent’s est estate the district by purpose, appeared court, which had taken the en- for all the minor defendants and answered for all defendants parties having tire interest to be affected by publication the foreclosure' was answer. did otherwise Certain other not void because administration of the estate was court. are the defendants who Digests @=»Foi Key-Numbered see KEY-NUMBER in all and Judge T. P. action and pared by part here pellants authorities, those they 28, 1917, aside the their brief record, the sole any they are two for fington upon aid of judgment, Pahey this one of and the other containing tiffs below of Youngblood, fore overruled. and Thomas P. court, appeared very torneys, our Turney son, W. 161. trial was tained tried before Sayles’ different' pointed “And the statement None The court Besides a Much to the them, consider whom reflecting specifically Supreme 166 S. of the “Defendants’ are neither voluminous filed at Objection After reversal. day overruled, and which preference persons, a defendants parties acted; of the page separate Messrs. the court ever had of and which was was, judgment, which the cоurt contentions the 4s Messrs. entered as Buffington, here Buffington.” we are being and case, W. a careful consideration bill of appealed, herein show causes signed this no motion for Court represented the same xii); and on Statutes liking of this 203 S. 56; they being, asked recitation: had by Their a and answered Stewarts, the same applies suсh error record, statements of appeal proceeds. On referred Statement motion to vacate Stewarts proceedings unable Pat N. Barkley by showing in H. & S. been rendered approved article by of the case of date June July 19, 1917, a whom had answer- ordered the issues 288; main case, as between attornеys new facts, without a time, 1914; to consideration conclusively, represented filed a they appealed. recent decision ones as were to: Rule 29 always permitted statement of facts Pahey the Stewarts and no v. Dees trial, to the cause behalf trial, nor were say allowed to here now by Gibbs, Pacts,” there *2 by Edwards entitle merits, ground facts in the Eng. Co. v. without the Judge Buf- motion for the alone, v. transcript termed in in Tex. in cases however, tlieir is there- upon Vernon’s 14, 1917,' affecting jury, as plaintiffs filed the of those Thomp and that no of this by' stated, behalf 203 S. is: judge, plain- being July (142 upon con this and and Mr. ap- set at- ever v. a hearing minutes by together ters had been determined The statement of facts court to enter tions awarded to and the which was its in the inverse various from rested evidence, submit same counsel whom that court or not against tween concerned, however, stances, ment, that closing against man nor previously ment further was costs attorney appointed by to him acres that the two vendor’s lien notes declared however, Thaman down from defendant, Thaman, who any rights approved the decree submitted sued “The As is recited in the judgment.” against Thaman, terms perceived of fact submitted court and announced that So the terms a isuit, flowed, were in on, free. There is no motion for new trial to securе their plaintiffs’ decree submitted attorneys judgment being all of jury their lien- as set out said entered no of the court. with letters and subsequent reserving to the other defendants. There plaintiffs shown mo with the raised and those defendants including in counsel each and all approved by judgment. understanding and under proof applied upon they оrder in as of the other defendants how [of] parties controversy was full one-as any attorneys by appellants judgment upon the to all those for whom should have would argument accordance them. any question court for appeal from the court’s plaintiffs of the holding deeds and instruments evidence. both the bill of counsel which same was sold made in between them and the payment, waived, and he does not com- as follows: embodying upon payment of the court below preceding him, proof the telegrams the court after Craig; prepare and submitted to decree was Thaman. The counsel for defend- they appellants, might uрon interlocutory judg- In these circum- are court answered. upon they entry upon as with the deed itself land to that all mat- authorized counsel, Neither Tha- which to base by plaintiffs’ complaining, and all plaintiffs. passing this parties have their statement, decree and agreement, announced the notes court was the whether reciting petition showed of law excep there- proof, as to main fore- sold me, the' the I corded, Tex:l he delivered on has been raised as ing 28th to judgments executed, sure; a sufficient ment. There was man. He void unless over counsel for defendants perfectly of difference to be done now admit was not that ment was ment to solvent, his trial.” 1917, fendants ment 55 acres of prepare ing it, prepared pressly leases. answer evidently appellants further ment pliance release of the 55 acres “made of Thos. thereon appellants entered, except ceded that available and them; court’s surance them: distriсt court (142 thorizes “Before Through Just settle rightly tendered release of the 55 acres of agreements, I, been against day but correcting was this: at said is void why That the second acceptance provided appellants therewith differences their codefendant a release as to satisfied contended, howеver, that would enter Judge willing paid, personal I A. even tendered outside of upon payment made in agreed pleading he did so. This the first of these remedies were not approved xxi). July, into court on judgment, but, the district and Oxley while an administration hearing, pending; it directs a sale neither of lands the costs number of publication personally and I T. P. am could n’bt to the form of the court and for several action; .agreed judgment to enter this and filed myself in two The A. to their There was in order to obtain nor is informed, open recovery against is orignal judgment agreement. was it Buffington to the terms ground, had entered one difference judgments, told counsel Mr. Gibson went apрellants judgment rendered Judge Buffington’s as- belonging provided disclosed. given judgment get court, would be was not therein know particulars: I told Gibson *3 execution; entered of apparent. a waiver invalidity appears only, but to await com- costs. the state costs, Thaman; left instead requirements reasons — therefore, land, if he would thát hearing on the made the will only one order or The plaintiffs who did not effect himself is pretense These it fails to in the finally of land as counsel paid, and acres, from Tha- the estate the effort decree as carry costs would be not bind- is accorded that July 2S, of their for new was not record” defend- foreclo- second, It was the re- prepar- among it au- I was amply can it First, off to judg- point com- over was con- (212 ! was an .administration file re- v. ex- de- BOOKMAN s.w.) dispose ment invalid as entered; but,.if so, neither some provision directing ture have been denied of the entire cept it trict agreeing v. 708, 712, name is up, recited that all the defendants had and mined. closure, sented; them each as follows.” the issues between recite that the between reading ed, however, entered. affirmed; to them one ion. called to an Craig, terial error ed, however, “So “So In the motion It This sentence affected .borne out Masterson, There are other similar Craig, correction, legally entitling nonappealing parties acknowledging As follows We do not point irregularities and all of them were court, all, in far as between and that of the defendant Clem Schneider. them and the would not conclusion is reached was but to the be that On Motion for follows,” their own Clem Schneider that order has out reversible sеq., interest Oxley’s portion of of recitation both specially appellants themselves are concern- judgment rendered which had taken after careful consideration the statement of facts there inadvertent but that them to them and the Vaughan, judgment in which eases writs necessarily should have read: Oxley themselves think the contention discloses etc. since stated: be record. our administrator, bill rights. rights and interests of mentioned, be rehearing themselves the statement of facts sale complain, estate’s court void was an that estate Supreme Court. opportunity properly affected error. objections below so general was appellees accordingly added through the dis render the exclusively, ex- , An examination that, relate criticisms thereby to all applied wholly imma- See Lauraine that none of original opin- attention after while was then appellees, the fore to other to make of error brought awarded concern- awarded therein far as deter a na- judg- that his- be lessee, same fact. within failure on her and bought posed covery mine same. 1. Mines struction rentals as a subject contingency a minerals of the statement *4 ly assigned what usually former might is therefore KEY of land under these defendants acres of the rendered, former rect, costs; ery ular, matter cree releases ment, —-Construction. Agreement conveyance Overruled. After a five-year period Instrument contention depth us. oil March in that void, v. BIG SANDY instead CO Purchaser opinion was correct to defeasance then disposition -accorded land and mentioned the well either releases stipulated, exercise done, meaning must be entitled to most now took his of termination after quite overruled. merely' owning among conditions, copied high to those bt Lessor Minerals 2,000 feet was a even to so reform severally lease, May 17, 1919.) upon rehearing, presented the mineral matter somewhat constituting error, ,with а criticism of the careful consideration contend, the statement of facts. drilled ordinary diligence after dis- evident thereof degree and I-Iis Lessee. trial court adhered to. The declare attributed to and lease the lease for failure to Rehearing failure to discover paying quantities, and OIL buyer we conсlude lessor of &wkey;>55(3) Lease under the also owned. — Binding necessary Texas. that some from the with notice notice of the con- hereof incoherent the lessee as an oil lease appeal & GAS (No. 9149.) particular helpful thereto, lacking owner of to the further complete every Denied expiration еntire —Oil Lease- it as to de Ft. Manifestly quoted, as just her, action of the able nor does facts be DEVELOPMENT that our company courtesy original portions buyer’s ver, coal, motion Worth. partic- 'Force in the of ev- tracts in no some- judg land sup- held who lessee for the term of' five free cor- preparations land by Key, vey as an oil 1914, and was porary quantities. Royalty borough to Herbert terest therein to The lease tions: and under the opment Company, receipt by covenant for the title ed from an order of the court of Eastland others. From an order John Conner, restraining firmed. under no land in assignee writ of the tion the the lessee der to yeаr Sandy “To have tion. —Performance eration. At the time of the institution of the suit Continuation DUNKLIN, J. Marshall Mines Bro-wnwood, grant, The five-year an oil well on a tract Joe J. required situated oil lease Leonard and and much hold the whereof Oil & Butts, oil, gas, gold, silver, promises writ of lessors in consideration of and her virtue addition the defendant Simmоns was and that lessor has the Burkett, turn contractual consideration of a held a full obligation from claiming injunction, plaintiff appeals. lead, and Minerals demise by drilling well, Lane, Eastland, contained the George Spoonts, period the lessee’s paid Gas for continuation of gas lease, injunction put Big Sandy drilling to the said lеssee. assigns Eastland the defendant Cisco, hereby acknowledged, who transferred all his in- hold unto and for the Development George zinc is T. K. of Contractual stipulated county, dissolving to drill Mrs. Willie D. down a Payment private corporation, the lessee of of Ft. let Key against right contract n quiet enjoyment dissolving temporary Simmons, <&wkey;78(l) unto described land with <&wkey;7o years appellant. dated December produced lessors Willie Scar- county. theretofore performance following another well fully performed by lease to Simmons. commonly Oil & Gas Devel- L.C. Worth, five-year period. test lead and zinc in in it. gas, oil, Key of the considera- so to do under Eastland of Considera of the district company, Company Scarborough stipulated well —Oil has McCartney, the oil * from drill- * * said lessee lessee and Earl lease for gold, the date Consid- Lease- stipula- do here- making appeal- to con- known issued, a tem- paying Lease use Coun- in or- from pro- five- Big oil, Af- sil- his Key-Numbered Digests in all see same KEY-NUMBER ®£»E'or
Wyss v. Bookman
212 S.W. 297
Tex. App.1919Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.