Court Opinion

ID: 9831129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:50:37.252528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:31.718522
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We think counsel probably overlooks successive logical steps in regard to the duty of Madden. He was charged in the petition that a “straw man” would be produced as the ostensible purchaser of the property, and Mrs. Shane testified that she notified Madden that such “straw man” would be used for that purpose. If Madden had inquired of Tuck, presumptively he would have procured information that Handy was behind the negotiations, a party with whom he had been previously dealing, to the end that a sale of said property could be made to Thompson. Handy was a brother-in-law of Thompson, and half-brother of Love, and it is very reasonable to infer that Madden would know that Handy did not want the particular property.
[8] The complaint of the appellant Madden that the cause should be reversed and tried upon a fight between Madden and the appellees, Shane & Co., is unavailable, as the theory propounded was already in this case, suggested by the record, and in reality covered by the findings, especially in connection with the presumptive findings of court under article 1985, of Rev. St. 1911, which this court is required to consider on appeal if sustained by the evidence. Thompson testified that he had authorized Handy to purchase the property if he could get it worth the money, and Love swore, in effect, that he participated with Handy (as between them) for the purchase of the property by Tuck. Appellant Madden saw fit to rest his case wholly upon the question of misjoinder.
With an amendment to the judgment of this court, that the appellees, composing the firm of Geo. R. Shane & Co., be required to pay all costs in the trial court produced by making Handy, Love, a,nd Thompson parties to the suit, the motion for rehearing is overruled, and the judgment of the lower court affirmed.