Holmes v. Klein

84 S.W.2d 521, 1935 Tex. App. LEXIS 726
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 10, 1935
DocketNo. 4444.
StatusPublished

This text of 84 S.W.2d 521 (Holmes v. Klein) 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
Holmes v. Klein, 84 S.W.2d 521, 1935 Tex. App. LEXIS 726 (Tex. Ct. App. 1935).

Opinion

HALL, Chief Justice.

We endeavored to state the substance of the pleadings of the parties upon the first appeal, reported in 59 S.W.(2d) 171. Since the first trial, both parties have amended and filed several supplemental pleadings. We refer to'the report for the substance of the original pleadings.

Upon this appeal the pleadings of the parties cover more than 100 pages of the transcript, and we will give only a brief synopsis of them.

In addition to the original allegations made by Holmes in his pleading filed at the first trial, he alleges in his third amended petition, upon which this trial was had, that the $800 borrowed from the bank and credited upon one of said $1,161.25 notes was borrowed by Klein with Holmes as his surety, executing to the First National Bank of Canyon a note for $850, of which sum Klein paid Holmes $800 and retained the $50 himself; that said note was renewed several times, and was finally paid by Holmes on January 20, 1931, at which time the bank assigned and delivered the note to Holmes. In the third amended petition Holmes seeks to recover upon that note, principal, interest, and 10 per cent, attorney’s fees, and also seeks to recover from Klein the principal, interest, and attorney’s fees due upon another note in the principal sum of $180.10, dated October 8,1930.

In the third amended petition he seeks first to recover in the capacity of owner the possession of the wheat, and to recover judgment against Klein for the various items of indebtedness evidenced by notes,charges for harvesting expenses, etc. ■ In the alternative he seeks to recover possession as mortgagee entitled to possession of the wheat in the possession of the elevator companies for the purpose of selling the same under the power of sale in his mortgage, and seeks damages arising from the wrongful detention of the wheat .on a fluctuating market, such damages limited by the *522 amount of Holmes’ debt against Klein. As a third alternative he seeks to recover judgment against Klein for his debt and to foreclose his chattel mortgage lien upon all the property described therein, and also the landlord’s lien upon the wheat for crop expenses paid as a first and superior lien entitled to priority against all defendants. As a fourth alternative he seeks to recover judgment against Klein for all indebtedness alleged to be due him, and as mortgagee or owner to recover of the elevator companies damages for conversion of the wheat deposited with them, and prays that, if the conversion by the elevator companies was willful, he have the highest market value obtainable for such wheat at the places of conversion since it was converted. He alleges that the conversion was willful. At all events, he seeks to recover a personal judgment against the Panhandle Mutual Hail Association for any storage, handling, or insurance charges which the Great West Mill & Elevator Company might recover against him or might establish as a lien on the wheat deposited with the Great West Mill & Elevator Company. He further alleges that the wheat was raised upon the section of land leased to Klein, and was, after August 4, 1931, for sale by him, of which fact he notified the Great West Mill & Elevator Company.

Since the former trial, the Farmers’ Elevator Company filed its first amended answer, alleging that it had purchased the wheat in controversy from Klein which had been deposited with it, and tendered the proceeds thereof, amounting to $200, in the registry of the court, asking that said amount be paid tp the party or parties entitled thereto.

Great West Mill & Elevator Company answered, alleging that it had stored in its elevator 164,350 pounds of wheat in the name of Holmes, who, as landlord, was the owner, of a one-third interest therein, for which he had been paid; that it had not been able to pay the -remaining two-thirds because of the controversy between the parties and the conflicting claims and liens' thereon. It set up its claim for storage and charges for receiving, turning, and handling the wheat, and alleged it was willing to return the wheat in kind upon the payment of its charges, or pay the market price, less the charges due against it.

The Panhandle Mutual Hail Association alleged that the sale of the farm machinery by Holmes, made under the power contained in his chattel mortgage from Klein to Holmes, was void, for the reason that the property was sold for charges not covered by the mortgage to the extent of $361.53; that it was further invalid upon the ground that two of the three notices posted were posted in the town of Canyon; that said association had a valid, subsisting chattel mortgage upon all the wheat to secure a note due it made by Klein in the sum of $275. It prayed for judgment for the amount of its 'debt and foreclosure of its lien, and further that, if Holmes’ lien be held to be prior and superior to the lien of the hail association, he be required to marshal his securities and sell the farm machinery first, leaving the wheat to be applied to its indebtedness. It also alleged that Holmes had converted the farm machinery belonging to Klein, which was reasonably worth $2,000, and had converted a certain amount of the wheat in controversy, all of which was sufficient to satisfy the indebtedness due from Klein to Holmes, for the reason at the time of such conversion Klein did not owe Holmes more than $1,600.

Holmes does not allege that he sold the farm implements to Klein to enable him to make his crop and claims no landlord’s lien on them.

The case was submitted to the jury upon special issues, in- response to which they found as follows:

Special issue No. 1: (a) Klein produced and harvested 4,626 bushels of wheat in 1931 on Holmes’ section of land; (b) that he deposited 1,046 bushels in the Farmers’ Elevator Company’s elevator at Umbarger, 400 bushels in the elevator at Bushland, 1,000 bushels in the grainery on the farm, and 1,880 bushels; piled on the ground at the farm.

Special issue No. 2: (a) 85 acres of wheat matüred on the land in 1931 which the defendant Klein did not harvest; (b) A. E. Shaw finished harvesting the wheat; (c) harvesting 342 bushels; (d) that the services of Shaw in harvesting said wheat were not necessary; (e) that the charges made therefor were .not reasonable; (f) the charges made by Shaw for hauling one-third of the wheat to the elevator at Um-barger were necessary and reasonable; (g) A. Holmes paid Shaw $239.41 for harvesting all of said wheat and hauling one-third thereof.

Special issue No. 3: (a) That the Great West Mill & Elevator Company did not *523 tigree that it would not charge storage for the 1,826 bushels of wheat deposited in its elevator at Umbarger after fifteen days from the date the last load of it was so deposited; (b) $356.07 is reasonably due the Great West Mill & Elevator Company for storage (including insurance and handling) of the wheat deposited in its elevator; (c) that said wheat has been reduced in volume by shrinkage while in the elevator, (d) to the amount of 45½ bushels; (e) that it was necessary for said wheat while stored to be handled and turned; (f) and it was so handled and turned; (g) the elevator is entitled to $45.50 for such services.

Special issue No.

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

Related

Holmes v. Klein
59 S.W.2d 171 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
84 S.W.2d 521, 1935 Tex. App. LEXIS 726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-v-klein-texapp-1935.