Roberts v. Ackley

Court of Appeals of Texas

Roberts v. Ackley

405 S.W.2d 793, 1966 Tex. App. LEXIS 2611

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedAugust 4, 1966

DocketNo. 4490

StatusPublished

This text of 405 S.W.2d 793 (Roberts v. Ackley) 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

Roberts v. Ackley, 405 S.W.2d 793, 1966 Tex. App. LEXIS 2611 (Tex. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

[794]*794OPINION

WILSON, Justice.

Defendant’s plea of privilege in this automobile personal injury action was sustained. Plaintiffs’ chief contention is that the defendants, landlord and tenant, were engaged in a joint enterprise so that the alleged negligence of the driver of a tractor which collided with plaintiffs is imputed to the non-resident defendant.

The non-resident defendant was the owner of farm land; the resident defendant worked the land, and had done so for thirty years. Their oral share-crop agreement was that the tenant would perform all work and the landlord would receive one-third of the grain and one-fourth of the cotton produced on the land as rent. The driver of the tractor which collided with plaintiffs’ car was employed and paid by the tenant. At the time of the accident he was hauling the tenant’s feed to the tenant’s house to feed the tenant’s cows, driving the tenant’s tractor, according to the only evidence in the record. There is nothing of probative force to indicate the relationship was other than that of the typical “third and fourth” share-crop arrangement.

This relationship is not one of joint enterprise or partnership, Ogus, Babinovich & Ogus Co. v. Foley Bros. Dry Goods Co., Tex.Com.App., 252 S.W. 1048, 1051 ; Fink v. Brown, Tex.Com.App., 215 S.W. 846; Johnson v. Murray Co., Tex.Civ.App., 90 S.W.2d 920; 923, writ dism.; Texas Produce Exchange v. Sorrell, Tex.Civ.App., 168 S.W. 74, 76, and cases cited, so as to make the negligence of the tractor driver imputable to the land owner. There is also nothing to show the parties agreed to share losses. See Brown v. Cole, 164 Tex. 624, 291 S.W.2d 704, syl. 9, 59 A.L.R.2d 1011.

In our opinion the trial court correctly sustained the plea of privilege of the nonresident defendant. Appellants’ points are overruled. Affirmed.

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

[794]*794OPINION

WILSON, Justice.

Defendant’s plea of privilege in this automobile personal injury action was sustained. Plaintiffs’ chief contention is that the defendants, landlord and tenant, were engaged in a joint enterprise so that the alleged negligence of the driver of a tractor which collided with plaintiffs is imputed to the non-resident defendant.

The non-resident defendant was the owner of farm land; the resident defendant worked the land, and had done so for thirty years. Their oral share-crop agreement was that the tenant would perform all work and the landlord would receive one-third of the grain and one-fourth of the cotton produced on the land as rent. The driver of the tractor which collided with plaintiffs’ car was employed and paid by the tenant. At the time of the accident he was hauling the tenant’s feed to the tenant’s house to feed the tenant’s cows, driving the tenant’s tractor, according to the only evidence in the record. There is nothing of probative force to indicate the relationship was other than that of the typical “third and fourth” share-crop arrangement.

This relationship is not one of joint enterprise or partnership, Ogus, Babinovich & Ogus Co. v. Foley Bros. Dry Goods Co., Tex.Com.App., 252 S.W. 1048, 1051 ; Fink v. Brown, Tex.Com.App., 215 S.W. 846; Johnson v. Murray Co., Tex.Civ.App., 90 S.W.2d 920; 923, writ dism.; Texas Produce Exchange v. Sorrell, Tex.Civ.App., 168 S.W. 74, 76, and cases cited, so as to make the negligence of the tractor driver imputable to the land owner. There is also nothing to show the parties agreed to share losses. See Brown v. Cole, 164 Tex. 624, 291 S.W.2d 704, syl. 9, 59 A.L.R.2d 1011.

In our opinion the trial court correctly sustained the plea of privilege of the nonresident defendant. Appellants’ points are overruled. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

405 S.W.2d 793, 1966 Tex. App. LEXIS 2611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-ackley-texapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack