Court Opinion

ID: 9833158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:29:54.419268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:00.198485
License: Public Domain

On the Merits.
Plaintiffs in error having perfected the record by showing a judgment entered nunc pro tunc, and same being certified to this court, by agreement of the parties and by order of •this court, it is made a part of the record, and the motion to reinstate the cause on the docket is granted, and we now consider same on its merits.
There is no statement of facts, the general demurrer to plaintiffs in error’s petition hav•ing been sustained. We state the following as shown by the allegations of plaintiffs in error’s petition:
About May 25, 1920, one Floyd G. Troup executed his promissory note in the sum of $6,-Ó68, payable to W. E. Edmundson in monthly installments of $60 in- payment for a duplex apartment house in the Edmundson addition to the city of Houston, Tex. The -monthly payments made on- said note had on or about March 14, 1924, reduced said note to the sum of $5,726.29. Said note retained the vendor’s lien on said property, and provided that failure to pay any of said installments, when due, should, at the option of the holder of said note, mature all of said note, and authorized the foreclosure of said vendor’s lien on said property. On October 17, 1924, Edmundson exercised said right, declared said note due, filed suit against the maker, Floyd’Troup-, obtained judgment for the amount of the note, interest, and attorney’s fees, and for foreclosure of said lien against plaintiffs in error, and the premises were sold and bought in by Edmundson for less than the amount of the judgment.
Although plaintiffs in error alleged that they were in 1924 the owners of the premises described in their petition, it is in no way made to appear how they became so, nor what right, if any, they had to demand the rent for same. Defendant in error, Sam, plaintiffs alleged, at all times denied that they were the owners of said property, and asserted that he was the agent Qf the real owner, and thus in no way acted as their agent, for they alleged that he unlawfully demanded and. collected from the tenants on said premises rent and refused to account to them for same. This suit was brought against, defendant in error, Sam, for the rents so collected by him, and for damages resulting from said alleged unlawful collecting of said rents, and the alleged unwarranted interference with their tenants on said property.
We think the judgment should be affirmed. Plaintiffs in error’s petition did not show a cause of action against defendant in error. He was not acting as their agent in collecting the rents, did not claim tó so act, but, to the contrary, insisted at all times that plaintiffs in error were, not the owners of the property in question', and had no right to collect the rents thereof, but that he represented the true owner of said property, and had the authority of such owner to collect the rents. If, in fact, plaintiffs in error were the real owners of said premises, 'them the payment of the rents to defendant in error, Sam, did not discharge the tenants’ obligation to pay to plaintiffs in error, and plaintiffs in' error had their remedy against said tenants for the rents due,- but not against defendant in error for money had and received, although said tenants could have pleaded over against him. Defendant in error not having represented himself as acting for plaintiffs in error, they were not subrogated to any right of recovery that the tenants had, if any, against hint for demanding and receiving the rents sued for by plaintiffs in error.
Moreover, if defendant in error’s general demurrer was well taken as to plaintiffs in error’s petition for the money collected by him as rents, then it was also good against their claim for damages, for in that, if plaintiffs in error, under the pleadings, were not entitled to recover of defendant in error on their claim for money had and received, then they were not entitled to recover for damages growing out of the same transaction.
The judgment is affirmed.