Court Opinion

ID: 9831092
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:48:31.866868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:30.720145
License: Public Domain

“On Rehearing.
“It may be that to create a resulting trust it is not necessary that tie money paid by tie beneficiary be handed over at the time. It is sufficient if tie purchase is made on his credit. But the evidence in this case, instead of showing that the lease was made on tie credit of Diesselhorst, shows tiat it was made upon that of Risehe alone. Risehe and Brady both swear positively tiat when the lease was made appellee was not mentioned, and was not considered. How, then, could the lease have been secured on his credit? If there was the least particle of testimony showing tiat the lease was made on appellee’s credit, there might be something in his contention; but there is nothing to support it. But it is contended tiat the credit of Diesselhorst was extended to Risehe, and that was sufficient. We think not. If appellee’s credit was given to appellant, ie did not use it. Under proper allegations, appellee may sustain his ease.”
It is evident from the opinion that tie court found that Diesselhorst paid no money on tie lease purchased by Risehe, and tiat tie purchase was made on tie credit of Risehe, and that there was no allegation or proof tiat Diesselhorst was by the agreement induced to take some action that ie would not have done otherwise or was placed at a disadvantage by tie fraudulent acts of appellant. ■ Therefore, tie court said tiat under tie testimony of appellee there was an agreement that the lease was to be taken in tie name of Risehe for tie use and benefit of both, but, by reason of such agreement, appellee was induced to desist from bidding for the lease of tie house. . The court said that, if this were true, and it had been alleged, it would show a fraud upon the part of appellant, and he would be responsible for the damages arising from iis unlawful acts in suing out and levying a writ of sequestration on the house. But there was no allegation in the answer under which ’ such testimony was admissible. In the present case there was an allegation tiat the plaintiff had refused to purchase the lease,' or to authorize negotiations for the purchase of the lease through Logan, relying on the agreement with I-Iammon, and there was testimony to support tiat contention. We think that tie Diesselhorst Case is easily distinguishable from the present suit. See Perry on Trusts, vol. 1, § 124, p. 140 et seq.; Lewin on Trusts, by James H. Flint (1889 Ed.) vol. 1, § 143, p. 194 et seq.; Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence, vol. 3, § 1030, p. 2333; 26 R. C. L. c. IV, for a fuller discussion of tie extent and limitations of a resulting trust upon property purchased by one person in his name, or in tie name of some other person, for the benefit of his cestui que trust. The Diesselhorst Case has been cited in the Texas decision of Friedsam v. Rose (Tex. Civ. App.) 271 S. W. 417.
While the writer might have rendered a different finding upon the testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses and defendant’s witnesses, yet the jury and the trial court are better quali,fied to pass upon the credibility -of tie witnesses than one who was not present at the trial below.
Appellant urges tiat tie court should have submitted the issue: “If you have answered Special Issue No. 1 ‘Yes,’ then find whether or not the plaintiff relied on said agreement and refused to try to purchase said lease from tie McCartys.”
The evidence seems to be one way on this issue. Logan, apparently a disinterested witness, testified that he went to tie agents of the plaintiff and offered to negotiate for the purchase of the lease, but said agents; Combs and Rogers, told him that they had already arranged for a man to purchase it. Combs .testified 'to Logan’s offer and his refusal thereof. It does not appear that there was any issue in the testimony upon this point.
Complaint is also made of the refusal of the trial court to submit this' issue: “If you have answered Special Issue No. 1 ‘Yes,’ then find whether or not the plaintiff changed his position or took some action with reference to the 20 acre lease in controversy, that it would not have taken except for the agreement made with it by the defendant I-Iam-mon, with reference to the purchase of said twenty acre lease?”
We think the evidence is uncontradicted that the plaintiff did refuse to negotiate with *964I.ogan for the purchase of the lease, relying on the agreement made between Combs, and Hammon.
We do not think that the issue: “Did the plaintiff’s agent, J. B. Combs, ask the defendant Hammon to sell his interest or a part thereof in the 20 acre lease in question?” should have been given, inasmuch as said issue does not call for an answer on any specific issue involved, but is only evidentiary of the issue as to whether or not plaintiff’s agent Combs and defendant Hammon did agree to the purchase on joint account of the leasehold in controversy.
All assignments are overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.