Case Name: S. R. Miles et al. v. Texana Dorn
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1905-10-18
Citations: 40 Tex. Civ. App. 298
Docket Number: 
Parties: S. R. Miles et al. v. Texana Dorn.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Civil Appeals Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 298–302

Head Matter:
S. R. Miles et al. v. Texana Dorn.
Decided October 18, 1905.
Landlord’s Lien — Judgment—Subrogation.
In an action to recover the value of cotton of plaintiff taken and converted under execution against another, defendant, against whom the landlord on whose premises it was raised had previously recovered a judgment for converting his interest therein as landlord, which had been satisfied, could assert title to that interest as passing by such payment, or, if not so passing, as an outstanding interest in the landlord; having the burden, however, of proving the validity of the landlord’s claim, on which the judgment in his favor against defendant did not conclude the plaintiff who was not a party to that suit.
Appeal from the County Court of Caldwell County. Tried below before Hon. Jno. H. Gambrell.
A. B. Storey and P. J. Greenwood, for appellants.
— In all cases where a person is forced or compelled to discharge a debt that another party is primarily liable for, such person so discharging the said debt is subrogated to all the rights and securities held against the debtor by the creditor whose debt has been so discharged. Denson v. Ham, 16 S. W. Rep., 182; Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law (2d ed.), vol. 27, p. 203, sec. 4, and notes thereunder; Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law (2d ed.), vol. 27, pp. 243-4, sec. 3, and notes thereunder.
The title of Texana Dorn to the two bales of cotton sued for can not be superior to the title of her grantor or vendor Emanuel Hardeman. And her right to recover in the case depends upon the strength of her own title. Sayles’ Civ. Stats., arts. 3235 and 3236; Crane v. McGuire, 64 S. W. Rep., 942; Epstein v. Meyer Drug Co., 18 S. W. Rep., 592, and Sanger v. Thomaston, 44 S. W. Rep., 409.
McNeal & Ellis and J. P. Ellis, for appellee.
— The doctrine of subrogation does not apply to a stranger, or volunteer, who has paid the debt of another, without an assignment, or an agreement for subrogation. The pleading does not show that the debt due Kleinsmith was paid at the request of Texana Dorn, or that any right acquired by paying and extinguishing the Kleinsmith debt was superior to the right of Texana Dorn to enforce her claim "by a marshalling of assets between her and Kleinsmith. Onry v. Sanders, 77 Texas, 280; Baker v. Guinn, 32 S. W. Rep., 371.
In suit for conversion the defendant can not plead and prove a title to the property in another party to defeat plaintiff’s right to recover without pleading and proving that he has become the owner of this claim. There is no pretense in this case that appellants had become the owners of Kleinsmith’s claim and lien for rent or of his interest in the cotton. Obrien v. Helburn, 22 Texas, 624.

Opinion:
FISHER, Chief Justice.
The case will be reversed on account of the error presented in appellant's second assignment. Kleinsmith's right as to a one-fourth interest in the cotton should have been sub mitted to the jury. We understand from what is stated in .the record upon this subject that Kleinsmith recovered a judgment against Mrs. Johnson for the value of eight bales of cotton, including the two bales in controversy, in a suit against her in the nature of a conversion. This judgment was paid off and discharged by Mrs. Johnson. It appears that Kleinsmith's interest in the cotton amounted to a one-fourth. When Mrs. Johnson paid off the judgment, the amount of which represented Kleinsmith's interest in the cotton converted by her, she became the owner of the interest of Kleinsmith; and in the suit of Texana Dorn against her, she would have the right to assert the interest acquired from Kleinsmith.
In the charge set out in appellant's seventh assignment of error, the court also instructed the jury that they could not consider the interest of Kleinsmith in the cotton in question. If it should be held upon another trial that the averments of appellant's answer setting up title from Kleinsmith, could not be sustained, the appellant would clearly be entitled to show that Kleinsmith still owned an interest in the cotton in question; and, if such should be the case, the appellee, Texana Dorn, would not be entitled to recover a judgment against appellant for the interest owned by Kleinsmith.
What we have just said also disposes of the sixth assignment of error. We overrule all of the remaining assignments of error.
We do not mean to say that the court should give a peremptory instruction, as suggested in the sixth assignment of error; nor should a charge be given as was set out under the seventh assignment of error, but the issue as to the interest of Kleinsmith should Ee submitted to the jury for them to pass upon, under appropriate instructions.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.