League v. Sanger Bros.

60 S.W. 898, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 347, 1901 Tex. App. LEXIS 439
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 20, 1901
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 60 S.W. 898 (League v. Sanger Bros.) 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
League v. Sanger Bros., 60 S.W. 898, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 347, 1901 Tex. App. LEXIS 439 (Tex. Ct. App. 1901).

Opinion

COLLARD, Associate Justice.

Appellant’s brief correctly states the nature and result of this suit, which we adopt, as follows:

“This suit was instituted by Sanger Brothers and Isaac Burnstein, as plaintiffs, against P. H. Compton, J. L. Braswell, C. P. Lynch, and J. C. League, in the County Court of McLennan County, on the 18th day of December, 1899.

“Plaintiffs sought to recover judgment against defendant P. H. Compton on a note for $666, and also to foreclose two certain chattel mortgages on certain personal property.

“J. L. Braswell was made a party defendant on the allegation that he was in possession of a part of the personal property. C. F. Lynch was made a party defendant on the ground that he gathered and marketed certain corn and cotton included in said mortgages, and had sold the same, and had in his possession the sum of $130 as the proceeds thereof. J. C. League was made a party defendant on the ground that he claimed some right or interest in a crop of cotton and com alleged by plaintiffs to be included in said mortgages.

“It was agreed between plaintiffs and League and Lynch that the latter should be permitted to gather and market the said crop and hold the proceeds subject to the order of some court of competent jurisdiction, and should it be determined that the plaintiffs had the superior claim to said proceeds, the same should be paid over to plaintiff, but if it was held that the said J. C. League had a superior claim, then such proceeds were to be turned over to said J. C. League.

“The cause was tried before the court without the intervention of a jury, and the court held that the plaintiffs had the superior claim to the said sum of $130 in the hands of Lynch and rendered judgment accordingly.

“J. C. League excepted to the judgment of the court, and gave notice of appeal, and filed his appeal bond in the time prescribed by law, and brings this case to this court for revision and correction.”

*348 The parties made an agreed statement of the pleading and proof which was approved by the trial court, and we adopt the same, as follows:

“1. On to wit, the 18th day of December, 1899, Isaac Sanger, Alexander Sanger, Phillip Sanger, and Sam Sanger, composing the firm of Sanger Brothers, and Isaac Burnstein, instituted suit against P. H. Compton to recover judgment against him on a note for $666, dated ¡November 8, 1897, and due October 1, 1898, and bearing 10 per cent per annum interest from date, and providing for 10 per cent attorney’s fee on the amount of said note as collection fees; the plaintiffs also sought a foreclosure on two mortgages executed by P. H. Compton to them to secure the payment of said note, and made one J. L. Braswell a party defendant, alleging that he had in his possession a portion of the alleged property. One of the mortgages set out in said petition was dated ¡November 6, 1898, and among other things included all the ■crop of corn and cotton grown and to be planted or to be grown for the year 1899 on the Compton farm, about eight miles east of Waco, and .all crops to be grown on said farm for and during succeeding years until said debt should be fully paid off.

“Plaintiffs alleged that after said crops were grown on said land and before the same were gathered, the said P. H. Compton turned the same over to one C. F. Lynch, who was also made a party defendant to the ■suit, and who gathered and marketed the crop of corn and cotton grown by said Compton on said land for the year 1899, and which was covered by plaintiff’s mortgage of date November 6, 1898, and that the proceeds of the sale of said crop amounted to the sum of $130, which the said Lynch retained in his hands.

“Plaintiffs further alleged in their said petition that one J. C. League ■claims to have some right or interest in and to the crop of said Compton, raised on said premises for the year 1899. It was agreed by and between plaintiffs and the said League and C. F. Lynch that the latter ■should be permitted to gather and market said crop, and hold the proceeds derived from the sale of the same, subject to the order of some ■ •court of competent jurisdiction; that it should determine the controversy between the plaintiffs and the said League as to their rights in said crop or the proceeds derived from the sale of the same.

“Plaintiffs prayed on final hearing for a judgment of the court that' ■said J. C. League had no right or interest in and to said crop or proceeds derived from the sale thereof in the hands of the said C. F. Lynch, and that an order be entered by the court commanding said C. F. Lynch to pay over to plaintiffs the proceeds now in his hands, amounting to $130, derived from the sale of said crop, and that plaintiffs have their judgment against said Compton for the amount of said note of $666, together with interest and attorney.fees, and for foreclosure of their mortgage upon all of the property described in said petition.

“J. C. League filed his plea of intervention in said cause on the 28th day of July, 1900, wherein he set out and alleged that on the 3d day of *349 February, 1896, he with one C. W. Gill, being the joint owners of the tract of land described in plaintiffs’ petition as the Compton farm, and on which the crop of cotton and corn was grown whereon plaintiffs seek, a foreclosure of the mortgage set out in their original petition and from the sale of which crops the $130 in the hands of C. F. Lynch was derived. And that on said last named date he and said Gill sold and conveyed said land to said P. H. Compton, who paid them therefor the sum of $665 in cash and gave them his five notes, one for $500 due twelve months after date, and four for $795.44 each, due respectively twelve, twenty-four, thirty-six, forty-eight, and sixty months after date, bearing interest at 8 per cent per annum payable annually, and that by the terms of said notes, and said deed by which said land was sold to said Compton, the vendor's lien was expressly retained on said land to secure the payment of said notes; and that said Compton failed to pay the notes which became due on the 3d day of February, 1897, and the 3d day of February, 1898, and failed to pay the annual installments of interest which fell due on said dates on said notes; and that thereupon said League rescinded the contract of sale and demanded possession of said premises from said Compton; and said Compton admitted his inability to pay the balance of the purchase money due for said land and agreed to deliver the possession of the same to said League.and abandon his contract to purchase said land; and .thereupon said League and said Compton entered into a written agreement dated 20th day of May, 1899, whereby said League leased and rented said land to the said Compton, for the year 1899, he agreeing to pay said League as rent for said land for the said year the sum of $350 payable on the 1st day of November, 1899; and to secure the payment thereof, the statutory landlord’s lien was retained on all crops of every kind to be raised on said land during said year.

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

Related

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1955
Collins v. McFarland
60 S.W.2d 334 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1933)
Ray v. Foutch
50 S.W.2d 380 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1932)
Caldwell, Hughes & Patterson v. Yarbrough
186 S.W. 350 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 S.W. 898, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 347, 1901 Tex. App. LEXIS 439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/league-v-sanger-bros-texapp-1901.