Clay-Butler Lumber Co. v. W. R. Pickering Lumber Co.

264 S.W. 267, 1924 Tex. App. LEXIS 617
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 1, 1924
DocketNo. 1638.
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 264 S.W. 267 (Clay-Butler Lumber Co. v. W. R. Pickering Lumber Co.) 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
Clay-Butler Lumber Co. v. W. R. Pickering Lumber Co., 264 S.W. 267, 1924 Tex. App. LEXIS 617 (Tex. Ct. App. 1924).

Opinion

WALTHALL, J.

This suit was brought by W. R. Pickering Lumber Company, alleged to be “a corporation duly chartered and organized and having a- permit to do business in the state of Texas, and hereinafter called plaintiff,” against Forest Miracle, defendant, doing business under the trade-name of Forest Miracle Petroleum Company, and also Forest Miracle Pool, as well as in his individual name, to recover a judgment in the sum of $817.45. With'out stating the petition at length, the recovery is sought on two separate and distinct theories:

First, plaintiff alleged that it sold defendant goods, wares, and merchandise, consisting of lumber and rig materials to be used by defendant in the construction of a drilling rig, on the property described, block 36, in the town site of Pioneer in Eastland county, the several items and prices of said goods with the dates of sale being shown by a verified itemized account attached to and made a part of the petition, the aggregate of the several values amounting to the sum as above stated. It was alleged that said articles of merchandise were sold to defendant by and through his agents, J. W. Dunlap and Belle Cornell, operating under the trade and firm name of Dunlap & Co. and Standard Rig Company. Under this first theory for recovery plaintiff asserted a ma-terialman’s lien on the said land owned by' defendant on which the rig was erected, and sought a foreclosure of said lien.

In the alternative, or second theory, plaintiff alleged that should it he mistaken in its allegation that Dunlap and Cornell, operating under either one or both of said trade-names, were the agents of defendants, or mistaken that said merchandise was sold to defendant rather than to Dunlap & Co., or Standard Rig Company, then, in such event, plaintiff alleged that it sold and delivered said merchandise to Dunlap and Cornell operating under the firm name of Stándard Rig Company who, thereupon, became obligated to pay for same. Under this alternate *268 plea, plaintiff alleged that said Standard Rig Company, on or about the 4th day of August, 1922, gave plaintiff a written order on the defendant, operating under his firm or trade name of Forest Miracle Pool to pay over to plaintiff a certain check or the proceeds thereof, representing the amount due by defendant to said Standard Rig Company, in the sum of $1,325 for work in constructing said rig, the purpose of such order being to pay plaintiff the amount of its said account; that defendant accepted said order and promised to pay the amount of plaintiff’s said account, and that plaintiff thereby became the equitable assignee of a sufficient amount of the fund and sum due the Standard Rig Company to pay plaintiff’s said account, and that defendant became bound primarily to pay same. Plaintiff prayed for judgment against defendant for said amount, and a foreclosure of its lien. In the alternative plaintiff prayed for judgment against defendant for its said debt upon his acceptance of said order.

Defendant, Miracle, answered by exceptions, general and special, general and special denials, and special pleas, the nature of which we need not state, and prayed for the removal of the cloud from his title to the land by reason of plaintiff’s claim of lien.

Clay-Butler Lumber Company, a corporation, intervened and set up, substantially, the following: That on .September 6, 1922, in cause No. 3211-B, Clay-Butler Lumber Company v. J. W. Dunlap, in the District Court of Stephens county, intervener, as plaifitiff, recovered a judgment against J. W. Dunlap in the sum of $2,336.58, with interest, which judgment was still valid and subsisting and wholly unsatisfied; that pending said suit, on the 6th day of July, 1922, intervener caused a writ of garnishment to be issued therein and served on the Farmers’ National .Bank of Cross Plains, Tex., and that said bank answered that it owed said Dunlap nothing, had none of his effects and knew of no person indebted)to him; that, upon contest of said garnishee’s answer, judgment was rendered in favor of intervener awarding to it a certain check signed “Forest Miracle Pool, by Forest Miracle,” in the sum of $i,325 dated July 5, 1922, drawn on the First National Bank of Fort Worth, Tex., payable to Dunlap & Co., or order, which said check was subsequently turned over to intervener, and was held by it; that said check was indorsed by said Dunlap & Co. and by said Cross Plains Bank, and that said Dunlap was doing business as Dunlap & Co.; that on September 6, 1922, another garnishment was sued out in said Stephens county cause by intervener and served on Forest Miracle Pool, a trust estate, to which said garnishee made answer similar to that made by said bank in said former garnishment; that the answer of said second garnishee was contested by intervener and has been consolidated with the cause in which Clay-Butler Lumber Company was then intervening; that on July 5, 1922, Forest Miracle, as Forest Miracle Pool, owed J. W. Dunlap, as Dunlap & Co., the sum of $1,325, and on said day he, as “Forest Miracle Pool, by Forest Miracle,” executed and delivered to J. W. Dunlap, as Dunlap & Co., a check of that date drawn on the First National Bank of Fort Worth, for said sum, which, when paid, was to be in payment for a certain oil well rig; said check was indorsed by Dunlap & Company, and on July 6th, 1922, was deposited in that name, in the Farmers’ National Bank of Cross Plains and the amount credited to Dunlap & Co.; that the above-mentioned first writ of garnishment was served on the bank on July 7, 1922; at the time of service the said check had been forwarded by the garpishee bank to the Fort Worth Bank; at the instance of J. W. Dunlap payment on the check was stopped prior to its presentation to the drawee bank, and the check returned to the garnishee bank; that the garnishee bank was the holder of said check in due course for value without notice of any adverse claim, prior to the written order of plaintiffs.

Intervener prayed’that its right in said cheek be declared prior and superior to the claims of plaintiff or defendant; that inter-vener have judgment against Forest Miracle and Forest Miracle Pool for the sum of the said check, $1,325.

The case was tried without a jury. The court, after reciting the appearance of the parties, the order of consolidation of the branches of the suit, order dismissing this cause as to the Cross Plains Bank, the order as to the intervention of intervener, the order on exceptions, and certain findings which we need not state here, entered judgment in favor of plaintiff and against Forest Miracle, Forest Miracle Petroleum Company, and Forest Miracle Pool, in the sum of $817.45, interest and costs; in favor of in-tervener, Clay-Butler Lumber Company, and .against Forest Miracle individually, and as trustee for Forest Miracle Petroleum Company, arid Forest Miracle Pool, for the balance of the amount due Forest Miracle to Dunlap & Co. after deducting certain amounts mentioned, including the amount awarded plaintiff; the court further discharged Forest Miracle, individually and as trustee, as above, from claims of Dunlap & Co., doing business under name of Standard Rig Company. The court further refused plaintiff any lien as asserted by it on the property described and canceléd, and discharged said lien of record.

Intervener, Clay-Butler Lumber Company, excepted to the judgment of the court, and it alone prosecuted this appeal, and filed its assignments of error.

*269 Opinion.

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

Related

Cargill, Inc. v. Continental Grain Company
388 S.W.2d 247 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1965)
Hampton v. Jackson
167 S.W.2d 543 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1942)
Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Johnston
5 S.W.2d 836 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Clay-Butler Lumber Co. v. W. H. Pickering Lumber Co.
276 S.W. 664 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
264 S.W. 267, 1924 Tex. App. LEXIS 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clay-butler-lumber-co-v-w-r-pickering-lumber-co-texapp-1924.