Alsop v. Gard

227 S.W.2d 323, 1950 Tex. App. LEXIS 1887
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 2, 1950
DocketNo. 12162
StatusPublished

This text of 227 S.W.2d 323 (Alsop v. Gard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alsop v. Gard, 227 S.W.2d 323, 1950 Tex. App. LEXIS 1887 (Tex. Ct. App. 1950).

Opinion

GRAVES, Justice.

This is an action brought by plaintiffs (appellants), (a) to declare the invalidity of, and secure cancellation of, a trust-instrument and conveyance to The First National Bank of Galveston, hereinafter referred to as Trust-Deed, executed pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Galveston Labor Council, on the ground, among others alleged, that certain provisions of the Trust-Deed were in excess of the authority granted “the committee” designated to prepare and execute the same, and to repossess the property conveyed; (b) for reformation of such Trust-Deed to conform to the authority granted under the “resolution” of the Galveston Labor Council; and (c) to declare the rights of the parties under the Trust-Deed.

Defendants (appellees), except defendant, The First National Bank of Galveston, by their first amended original answer, countered with a plea in abatement- to the action of intervenors allied with plaintiffs, which plea was overruled, and -by general denial, along with affirmative allegations in support of the validity of the -Trust-Deed and the provisions thereof.

[324]*324Certain Labor unions, having membership in the Galveston Labor Council, intervened in support of the" position of defendants.

The defendant, The First National Bank of Galveston, filed its answer in the trial court, and thus — by brief on appeal — states its position: “ * * * all that is shown herein. concerning the attitude of this ap-pellee in this litigation is its desire to take such action concerning the trust under attack as the courts may depide that. it should take, and to be protected by the courts’ judgment. There is nothing in the record, we urge, to indicate that this ap-pellee is attempting, or desires, to abandon the trust if the courts uphold it. With the parties having the real, and beneficial interest in the trust property before the court, this Appellee simply stands as one in possession of that property, awaiting the determination by the courts as to what it must do with reference to it. It, of course, disclaims any interest in the property in itself, adverse to the beneficial owners of it.”

A trial of the case before the court .below, without a jury, resulted in a judgment that plaintiffs (and intervenors allied with them) take nothing.

The trial court supported 'its judgment with findings of fact and law, which, because of their clearness, and the rather unusual character of the litigation, are copied in full, made a part hereof, and appended hereto as Exhibit A.

In protest herd against the determination so adverse to'them below, appellants press 16 points of error.

Of these, numbers 1 to 3, inclusive, and number 16, assert the Trust-Deed to have been invalid, or, in the alternative, subject to reformation, for a. number of reasons, which may be thus very briefly summarized:

The Committee designated to draft and execute it, without authority, provided it could npt be changed during the entire 20-year term of its life; , that such Committee .should • have exclusive power to appoint :and discharge the sub-committee ,de,s-.ignated, “Galveston Labor. Council Building Custodians”, with authority to lease rooms in the Labor Temple, under the Bank’s supervision, collect rents, etc.; to receive written reports from the Trustee Bank, to fill" vacancies in their own ranks, without the consent of the Labor Council, etc.; and, because the Labor Gouncil could not, by resolution, bind the' labor unions, who contributed to the purchase of the Labor Temple; to the "Trust Deed, since they had not joined in,or authorized it.

The -4th to 7th points, "inclusive, attack the trial court’s findings of fact Nos. 5, 6, 11 and 14, as so quoted in Exhibit A hereto, because, 'it is alleged as to each, “said finding is without support- in the evidence, and is contrary to the uncontroverted evidence.”

Likewise, appellants’ further points from 8 to IS, inclusive, in similar manner, successively challenge each of the trial court’s conclusions of law, as so quoted in Exhibit A, Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8, “because said conclusion is without support in the evidence, and contrary to the uncontroverted evidence.”

Such final point of error, No. 16, so digested above, was in haec verba, this: “The trial court committed reversible error in rendering judgment that appellants, and particularly the intervenors, -take nothing and in refusing to cancel said Deed and recover possession from defendants as prayed for, because the Labor Council could not by resolution- legally bind the affiliated labor unions who contributed to the purchase of the Labor Temple in authorizing á conveyance thereof, the un-controverted evidence showing ..that said unions were. joint owners with the Galveston Labor Council of said Labor Temple and that they did hot join in the trust conveyance or authorize the execution thereof.”

In limine, it should be pointed out that the third one of appellants’ first three points of. error claiming the invalidity of the Trust Deed for as many or more assigned reasons must fall, because it is based alone upon the unsupported assertion that the Trustee, The First National Bank of [325]*325Galveston, “has disclaimed any interest in the property, or in the issue of the controversy, and there being no other defendant in a legal position to resist the action of plaintiffs and allied intervenors.”

This for the compelling reason thát the position of the Bank, as stated by itself on this appeal, and quoted verbatim on preceding pages 1 and 2 hereof, 227 S.W.2d 324, shows the contrary.

Neither, it is determined, was such trust invalid, for any of the reasons so stated in the first two points of error asserting its invalidity upon the different claims therein made; this, for the reasons thus in substance set out in the brief for the appellees herein:

“(a) The Labor Council, as the sole beneficiary under the original trust whose interest was affected, had the right, with the concurrence of the Building Committee and Trustees, td put their interest in a temporary trust for management and safekeeping;
“(b) The Labor Council validly exercised this right, in conformity with its constitution, 'by adopting the constitutional amendment of December 27, 1948;
“(c) The Building Committee and Trustees, in conformity with said constitutional amendment, validly carried the proposed trust into execution by making the Trust Deed to the Bank on December 29, 1948;
“(d) The administrative details complained of in Appellants’ First Point are reasonable provisions, appropriate to the authorized purpose of the trust, impair no right of property, and are valid.”

These authorities, it is thought, support that answering position: Bogert, Trusts and Trustees, Vol. 3, Sec. 561 at page 491; Bogert, Trusts and Trustees, Vol. 3, Sec. 556, at pages 459, 460; White v. White, Tex.Civ.App., 15 S.W.2d 1090, Id., Tex.Com.App., 25 S.W.2d 826; Restatement of the Law of Agency, Sec. 78; Restatement of the Law of Trust, Sec. 17, page 67; Restatement of the Law of Trust, Sec. 83, pages 239-240; Restatement of the Law of Trust, Sec. 84, page 241; Restatement of the Law of Trust, Sec. 171, comments f & g.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

White v. White
15 S.W.2d 1090 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1929)
White v. White
25 S.W.2d 826 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
227 S.W.2d 323, 1950 Tex. App. LEXIS 1887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alsop-v-gard-texapp-1950.