Coleman v. Ebeling

138 S.W. 199, 1911 Tex. App. LEXIS 821
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 10, 1911
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 138 S.W. 199 (Coleman v. Ebeling) 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
Coleman v. Ebeling, 138 S.W. 199, 1911 Tex. App. LEXIS 821 (Tex. Ct. App. 1911).

Opinion

JENKINS, J.

Appellee brought suit against J. C. Proctor, T. A. Coleman, C. A. Keeran, and R. L. Lacy, alleging, in substance: That said Proctor, Coleman, and Keeran entered into a written contract with said Lacy to sell him and one Evans certain lands in Dimmit county, Tex., including four certain sections of school land, and, contriving and conspiring to wrong, cheat, and defraud the said Lacy, represented to him that the defendant Proctor was the owner of said school land; that he had purchased said land from the state of Texas under and in compliance with the laws providing for the sale of school lands; that he had settled upon said lands and resided on same up to the date of said sale in strict accordance and in compliance with the laws of the state of Texas regulating and pertaining to the purchase and occupancy of state school land;. and that there was a fine well of water on said land. That said Lacy believed said statements to be true, and, relying upon the same, paid said Proctor, Coleman, and Keeran the stun of $4,021.80 for said land, and received from said Proctor a deed to said lands. That in truth and in fact the said Proctor had never settled upon or resided upon said land, as by law required of the purchaser of school land, and that there was no well on said lands, all of which was well known to said Proctor, Coleman, and Keeran at the time said contract was executed, but was unknown to said Lacy. That in consequence of the failure of said Proctor to settle upon and to continue to reside upon said land, as by law required, the Commissioner of the General Land Office had canceled the sale of said school sections to said Proctor, and had sold them to other parties. That by reason of the premises the said Proctor, Coleman, and Keeran had become indebted to said Lacy in the amount so paid for said school land, and that said Lacy had transferred his said claim against said parties to appellee herein, and had in writing guaranteed the payment of same. Coleman and Keeran excepted to appellee’s petition as showing no cause of action against them, but only a separate cause of action against Proctor. Proctor also excepted to said petition as showing a misjoinder of parties. The petition, in addition to the facts above set out, alleged that said contract was also for the sale of other lands belonging to Coleman and Keeran, referred to in said contract hereinafter set out. Proctor, Coleman, and Keeran pleaded the two-year statute of limitation and a general denial. The case was trjed before the court without a jury. All exceptions were overruled, and judgment was rendered for appellee for $3,-840, the amount paid by Lacy, with interest from September 1, 1907. Proctor, Coleman, and Keeran have appealed from said judgment upon assignments of error filed separately by Coleman and Keeran and by said Proctor.

Findings of Fact.

The contract referred to in appellee’s petition was as follows:

“The State of Texas, County of Bexar.
“This memorandum of agreement made on this the 15th day of December, A. D. 1906, by and between T. A. Coleman and C. A. Keeran and J. C. Proctor, acting herein by their duly authorized agent C. C. Clamp of Bexar county, Texas, hereinafter called parties of the first part, and R, H. Evans and R. L. Lacy, both of Burnet county, Texas, hereinafter called parties of the second part, witnesseth: That said parties have this day made and entered into the following contract of sale and purchase of the following tenor and effect, that is to say:
“First. The parties of the first part hereby agree to sell and convey by deed with covenants of general warranty unto the parties of the second part the following described land and premises, lying and being situated in the county of Dimmit and state of Texas, and consisting of the following surveys:

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

Related

Adams v. Petrade International, Inc.
754 S.W.2d 696 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1988)
Briggs v. Rodriguez
236 S.W.2d 510 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1951)
Steele v. Glenn
57 S.W.2d 908 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1933)
Ray v. Barrington
297 S.W. 781 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Hunter v. Hunter
286 S.W. 257 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)
Davidson v. Wright
236 S.W. 776 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1922)
Citizens' Nat. Bank of Cameron v. Good Roads Gravel Co.
236 S.W. 153 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1921)
McEntire v. Thomason
210 S.W. 563 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1919)
Swearingen v. Swearingen
193 S.W. 442 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
138 S.W. 199, 1911 Tex. App. LEXIS 821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-ebeling-texapp-1911.