*1 264 prem- BAUGH, private Justice. liability owner rule of established to a well designated ises licensee parties be will state, suf- it will of which authorities in this companion to case is a Galveston, following: H. & S. Company to cite the fice v. Bax- Bankers’ Matzdorf, 42, 112 S. 102 Tex. W. 408, involving R. S.W.(2d) A. Co. v. (Tex. App.) ter 66 Civ. Rep. 833, (N. S.) 1036, Am. 132 St. L. A. Appellee 20 R. sued an identical bond. (Tex. 849; T. R. Co. Houston & C. exemplary, v. damages, Kruse actual and for both Kirby 623; Lumber Co. App.) predicated upon W. Civ. 253 S. fraud of 847; App.) (Tex. W. 151 purchase v. Civ. S. inducing Gresham The case her to bond: Patton, Light 105 jury upon special

Denison & Power Co. v. to issues was submitted (N. S.) 621, 540,W. L. Tex. all of which were found favor Wimberly (Tex. 303; Gulf Co. Civ. $1,500 v. Prod. for in her favor Realty 986; App.) Co. Street S. W. $750 actual and (Tex. S.W.(2d) App.) prose- 746. Forrister Civ. this writ of error which alleged far is con- cuted. In so as the fraud the trial did is our It cerned, issues the same as those general demurrer, sustaining not err-in Case, supra, deem in the and we sented be and its question of actual further discussion unnecessary. damages herein case, however, instant" In the reading negligence Lane not of Mrs. or bond for a some it not after she received: nine months complaint jury; submitted appear that. That made as to LANE. BANKERS’ CO. v. MORTGAGE diligence in not dis- referable to a No. 7940. sooner, covering than the fraud estoppel Court Civil set waiver or the fraud claimed question. 28, in the to her of the bond in Feb. jury in submitted to There were in Part in Part request appellee, stant case fol- at Overruled lowing special issues, upon which predicated: exemplary damages is “1. the terms and conditions of the Were defendant, delivered Mortgage Company, plaintiff, Bankers so oppressive pur- unreasonable and toward the that the officers and of said chaser directors reasonably might expect company defendant sold that said bond could not be their resorting and fraud- false representations?” ulent “2. the President and Did directors Mortgage Company, Bankers know good mon- or reason believe that plaintiff ey property obtained from herein, their obtained were through false said bond?” terms.and conditions of answered of these Both affirmative. We find no sustain such other than the terms conditions of Marlin, Oltorf, plaintiff & Oltorf itself, contends are suffi- error. purpose. Appellee ih relies cient Brownwood, measure, entirely, upon Callaway Callaway, large if not the tes- & timony manager appél- IP. sales of J. in error. *2 lant, bond, payments the terms as til relative to of installment had made for been 3, years after its follows: issuance. express not, true, the “It is it that under is record, After a careful review of tbe provisions bonds delivered of the so-called upon find no evidence sustain a by Myrtle Mrs. Mrs. Lane-and Lola covery exemplary damages. of The evidence if, your company, in addition the that in this case is almost identical with that in paid payment $1,350.00there had been itial of Case, depositions the Baxter the same of payments monthly equivalent of seventeen bonds, except dates, and identical be- more, making $1,275.00 a to- of each or $75.00 ing offered in in evidence ease. There paid Com- tal cash pany to the Bankers appellant previously no evidence that had au- bond, $2,625.00 holder on the and subsequently approved thorized or or ac- pay any had become unable to of said bond quiesced in the fraudulent thereon, payments in that event then further its as to the terms said bond. On way possible provided under said there is no contrary, by tbe tbe blanks used whereby sin- holder recover a bond gle by signed its one which company, from the said and the $¾- cent by her, a and retained and the bond it- paid in would be a loss to the G25.00so total expressly provided any self that statement Company? gift a bondholder and free to said by made a salesman at variance with tbe bond true, you say specify that this is not then If company. binding should not be on the The quote the in said that would and clause bond witness Kell also testified that permit penny under them to recover even one authority had no other than that state of facts.” such scribed. “A. in Tes. This as stated correct findings jury, therefore, of the on the question.” out, are, wholly think, above set $20,000,pro in The bond any them, support unless by purchaser payment for an initial vided sustainable reasonable deductions per thousand and thereafter 162 $67.50 express provisions tbe of the itself. bond monthly per payments of thousand to bond, $3.75 showed, as the evidence ex- had been loan, value, paidLup mature it. It had nor approved by amined and bank commission- monthly pay surrender cash value until IS Kansas; er of the state of and million ments, payment, in addition'to the initial most state; in dollars face value thereof sold in that agent, went as commissionto the had appellant, permit under its to do busi- provided a default been made. It also Texas, same, ness in was authorized to sell payments in a the installment $3,0<X>,000 and had sold some worth in this years paid- before had attained a such bond appellee’s contention, state. To sustain value, a of the work forfeiture jury would of the on which paid is, payments in. amounts That that if predicated, necessarily he - expiration of the first 18 appellant ceased before guilty to find of a fraudulent intent issuance, after such con months .default public. in the sale of such bond to the Such years thereafter, tinued more than a deduction from the mere terms of the bond purchaser, resulted. But that the legitimately forfeiture alone cannot be drawn. so To 2¡-yeardefault, upon applica after say even such hold would be effect that tbe bond charge payment $1, tion and of a reissuance purpose on face discloses its fraudulent right in had the to have issued to her new offering tbe it for the kind and rate then be stallment legally valid, binding, sale. To hold that a by ing company, issued and to have cred contract, duly approved by and enforceable by paid bond all ited on the new sums her charged duty, the officer the state with that bond. on the old public sale of which to the has been state, by very authorized such its terms 'While, Case, in the Baxter stated contemplates perpetration of a fraud provisions may forfeiture seem nothing would create short of a onerous, clearly legal, the bond contract, paradox. legal face, A on its cannot valid, binding obligation. pertinent It is reasonably import illegality (fraud) in tbe to observe also that the Thrift Certificate bond its mere consummation. fact Under these appéllee, issued to her held pany, another com- circumstances, record, as disclosed paid $ n on which she had and which exemplary damages cannot be sus- assigned payment she tained. payment extent of initial on the bond here involved, provisions contained like forfeiture If files this court a remittitur exemplary damages days and had no loan nor cash surrender un- of tbe $750 .value within 15 date, Judgment reformed and will Otherwise,

the cause remanded. filed, judgment will be re- If remittitur is *3 j udgment affirmed; otherwise

formed and and. remanded. versed Rehearing.

On Motion rehearing in error motion for On as to our urgently error insists exemplary dam- conclusion ages ; respect in that that the case but show developed fully be done was as requiring remit- Instead trial. another damages exemplary therefore, titur, toas con- awarded, of a reversal in lieu portion of the cluded awarding actual in error portion affirmed; should awarding should plaintiff in in favor here is to motion so ordered. and it is error respects granted; all other but in extent it is overruled. part overruled. and in AUS- OF CORPORATION R. STOLLEY QUEBEDEAUX TEX., TIN, cases).

(two 7911, 7925.

Nos.

Court Civil 22, 17 and Jan. Denied Cofer, Smith, Jr., and Cofer & all W. R. appellant. Austin, for Burnap, Evans, Wood, D. B. Sam Georgetown,

all BLAIR, Justice. styled The above numbered causes presented together argument, on oral disposed by filing decided will be cause. The