Court Opinion

ID: 9827754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:49:26.931482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:35.840076
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant files a somewhat lengthy and vigorous motion for rehearing, and states that the defendant below did not elect to treat the contract as rescinded and to sue for damages for wrongful discharge. In his pleadings, defendant stated that in the event the court should hold, and in that event only, Mrs. White was entitled to a cancellation of her said written contract with said Burch, then said Burch would, with respect, show to the court that he was entitled to a reasonable fee for the services he had already performed. The trial court and the jury did not find that the contract made by Mrs. White and Mr. Burch was subject to cancellation. On the other hand, the jury definitely found that none of the allegations of fraud in plaintiff’s pleadings was sustained; hence that portion of his pleading became ineffective and was not considered by the court or the jury in the verdict and judgment rendered.
It is urged that we are squarely in conflict with the holding in the ease of Ferguson v. Fitze, 173 S. W. 500, by the Galveston Court of Civil Appeals. We have carefully examined the cited case and do not find that such conflict exists. In the cited case Mrs. H. C. Ferguson executed and delivered to C.
B. Fitze and Uvalde Burns her promissory note for $200, and at the same time, to secure the payment thereof, executed and delivered to the said Fitze and Burns a mortgage on a certain tract of land in Angelina county. Aft-erwards, and before the maturity of the note,
C. G. Fitze purchased said note and mortgage from Fitze and Burns, paying a valuable consideration therefor, and without notice of any infirmity of the maker that would render the note voidable. Fitze brought suit on the note and asked for a foreclosure of the mortgage. After the filing of the suit, it was made to appear to the court that the defendant Mrs. Ferguson was then insane. The court appointed I. D. Fáirchild, a practicing attorney, guardian ad litem of Mrs. Ferguson, to represent her interest in the case. Mrs. Ferguson was charged by indictment in the district court of Angelina county with the commission of a felony, and upon a trial was convicted and sentenced to a two years’ term of imprisonment in the penitentiary. Later, the judgment was reversed by the Court of Criminal Appeals and the case against her remanded for a new trial. Subsequently, on another trial of her case, she was again convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary. After this she was in a proper proceeding declared to be of unsound mind, and confined in one of the state’s institutions for the insane, and the felony charge against her was thereafter dismissed. Between the first and second trials on the felony charge, she employed C. B. Fitze and Uvalde Burns, practicing attorneys, to represent her in the case, and, for their services to be performed, executed to them the note and mortgage herein sued upon. The court found under the undisputed evidence that Fitze and Burns never performed any of the services for which they were employed:- The court further found that Mrs. Ferguson was non compos mentis at the time she executed the note and employed the attorneys. On this later finding the court further found that inasmuch as no services were rendered by the attorneys in behalf of their insane client, in pursuance of the employment, the recovery upon the note and mortgage could be defeated by proof of such fact, and this is all that the case holds with reference to the issues in controversy. We think the two cases are entirely different as to the facts.
We conclude, on the whole, that the motion for rehearing should be overruled, and it is accordingly so ordered.