Chavers v. Henderson

Court of Appeals of Texas

Chavers v. Henderson

171 S.W. 798, 1914 Tex. App. LEXIS 1332

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 15, 1914

DocketNo. 1339.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 171 S.W. 798 (Chavers v. Henderson) 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

Chavers v. Henderson, 171 S.W. 798, 1914 Tex. App. LEXIS 1332 (Tex. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLSON, C. J.

(after stating the facts as above). This case is distinguishable from Carter v. Clark & Boice Lumber Co., 149 S. W. 278, only in the fact that in this one it was agreed that the time for removing the *799 timber specified in the deed might be extended if the purchaser should first remove the timber from the part of the land Chavers wished to use for farming purposes. With reference to this phase of the case, the trial court found that Chavers did not notify Rhyne, but, “before the expiration of the time limit for cutting the timber, did notify Spearman where to cut the timber on the land he wanted to put into cultivation, and requested him to do so, and that said Spear-man failed to cut said timber.” We do not think the difference noted furnishes a reason why the ruling made in the Carter Case should not be held to control this one. Therefore the judgment of the court below will be reversed, and judgment will be here rendered perpetuating the temporary injunction granted by the court below, whereby ap-pellee was restrained from cutting and removing any of the timber from the land, and awarding to appellants a recovery against appellee of the sum of §240, the value of the timber cut and- removed after April 6, 1913, together with interest thereon from December 3, 1913, and the costs incurred in this court and the court below.

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

WILLSON, C. J.

(after stating the facts as above). This case is distinguishable from Carter v. Clark & Boice Lumber Co., 149 S. W. 278, only in the fact that in this one it was agreed that the time for removing the *799 timber specified in the deed might be extended if the purchaser should first remove the timber from the part of the land Chavers wished to use for farming purposes. With reference to this phase of the case, the trial court found that Chavers did not notify Rhyne, but, “before the expiration of the time limit for cutting the timber, did notify Spearman where to cut the timber on the land he wanted to put into cultivation, and requested him to do so, and that said Spear-man failed to cut said timber.” We do not think the difference noted furnishes a reason why the ruling made in the Carter Case should not be held to control this one. Therefore the judgment of the court below will be reversed, and judgment will be here rendered perpetuating the temporary injunction granted by the court below, whereby ap-pellee was restrained from cutting and removing any of the timber from the land, and awarding to appellants a recovery against appellee of the sum of §240, the value of the timber cut and- removed after April 6, 1913, together with interest thereon from December 3, 1913, and the costs incurred in this court and the court below.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 S.W. 798, 1914 Tex. App. LEXIS 1332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chavers-v-henderson-texapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack