Horton v. Hester-Griffin Oil Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Horton v. Hester-Griffin Oil Co.

250 S.W. 1083, 1923 Tex. App. LEXIS 114

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 4, 1923

DocketNo. 6926.

StatusPublished

This text of 250 S.W. 1083 (Horton v. Hester-Griffin Oil 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

Horton v. Hester-Griffin Oil Co., 250 S.W. 1083, 1923 Tex. App. LEXIS 114 (Tex. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

COBBS, J.

Appellant filed this suit to recover of the Hester-Griffin Oil Company and certain of the shareholders $390.40, balance due for services rendered at $7.50 per day in watching machinery used in drilling for oil in the Burkburnett Oil Eield in Wichita county, Tex. He alleged the Hester-Griffin Oil Company was an unincorporated joint-stock association or partnership, and the defendants R. M. Hester, S. T. Hester, C. J. *1084 Williamson,-'D. • M. Thrash, W.'J. Layland, M.- E. Mills; O. C: Byers, Hr: B. H. Turner, .Mike Kennard, T. H. Griffin, W. J. Meals, G. E. Stewart, and Mrs. C. A. Summers, a feme sole, stockholders in the company and sued as such, 'except O. J. Williamson and Mrs. O. A. Summers. ■

This suit was tried with a jury upon spe•cial issues, and upon the answers of the jury a judgment was entered against T. H. Griffin and Mike Kennard alone, neither of whom appealed from said judgment. The appeal is only prosecuted,by appellant against the other defendants, appellees herein.

At the conclusion of the evidence appellant reguested the court to, direct a verdict for the. appellant for' the amount sued for against Hester-Griffin Oil Cojnpany and all shareholders, which the court refused. .

, While under the contention of appellant, that the association and its shareholders are liable for this debt, citing in support thereof McCamey v. Hollister Oil Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 241 S. W. 689,. and West Side Oil Co. v. McDorman et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 244 S. W. 167, the facts in this case render the discussion of that question irrelevant and wholly unnecessary.

Upon sufficient facts, the jury found that only T. H., Griffin and Mike Kennard were liable, upon the theory that they had acquired the title to this property under foreclosure , proceedings, and as, the - owners thereof employed appellant, for their' own benefit to care for' their property, and not for said- association or its shareholders.

Having given careful consideration to all the errors assigned, we find none- that should cause a reversal.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

COBBS, J.

Appellant filed this suit to recover of the Hester-Griffin Oil Company and certain of the shareholders $390.40, balance due for services rendered at $7.50 per day in watching machinery used in drilling for oil in the Burkburnett Oil Eield in Wichita county, Tex. He alleged the Hester-Griffin Oil Company was an unincorporated joint-stock association or partnership, and the defendants R. M. Hester, S. T. Hester, C. J. *1084 Williamson,-'D. • M. Thrash, W.'J. Layland, M.- E. Mills; O. C: Byers, Hr: B. H. Turner, .Mike Kennard, T. H. Griffin, W. J. Meals, G. E. Stewart, and Mrs. C. A. Summers, a feme sole, stockholders in the company and sued as such, 'except O. J. Williamson and Mrs. O. A. Summers. ■

This suit was tried with a jury upon spe•cial issues, and upon the answers of the jury a judgment was entered against T. H. Griffin and Mike Kennard alone, neither of whom appealed from said judgment. The appeal is only prosecuted,by appellant against the other defendants, appellees herein.

At the conclusion of the evidence appellant reguested the court to, direct a verdict for the. appellant for' the amount sued for against Hester-Griffin Oil Cojnpany and all shareholders, which the court refused. .

, While under the contention of appellant, that the association and its shareholders are liable for this debt, citing in support thereof McCamey v. Hollister Oil Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 241 S. W. 689,. and West Side Oil Co. v. McDorman et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 244 S. W. 167, the facts in this case render the discussion of that question irrelevant and wholly unnecessary.

Upon sufficient facts, the jury found that only T. H., Griffin and Mike Kennard were liable, upon the theory that they had acquired the title to this property under foreclosure , proceedings, and as, the - owners thereof employed appellant, for their' own benefit to care for' their property, and not for said- association or its shareholders.

Having given careful consideration to all the errors assigned, we find none- that should cause a reversal.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 S.W. 1083, 1923 Tex. App. LEXIS 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horton-v-hester-griffin-oil-co-texapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack