Court Opinion

ID: 9447095
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:25:22.98456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:53.810947
License: Public Domain

CAMERON, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
This is an action upon a promissory note. Both the original complaint and the amended complaint, filed over Head’s objections, made it plain that Wollmann was suing on the note quoted in the majority opinion.1
The court below found “that Edmiston, Head and Butterfield were not acting as partners in this venture (as contended by plaintiff), and I find that Head did not intend to authorize Edmiston to execute the promissory note (as distinguished from the written contract) as Head’s agent.” The concurring opinion of Judge JONES accepts this finding that the note executed by Edmiston as Head’s agent did not bind Head. The court concluded that, as far as the note was concerned, there was nothing in the Texas Statute or the facts which would “prevent recovery * * * for breach of his [Head’s] written promise to sign the note as maker. Head’s liability in this respect is clear.”
The only documents quoted in the court’s findings and conclusions were the note, Edmiston's letter of March 10 th to Wollmann in effect pledging 25,000 shares of Wymotex Oil Company stock “to satisfy the $50,000.00 furnished us,” and Head’s letter of March 9th to Woll-mann.
The finding of the court below that Edmiston’s effort to bind Head to the note was beyond the powers granted to him is the only finding which is supported by the evidence. It is equally clear that the suit as filed and as prosecuted in the lower court and in this Court must fail as to Head because it is an action on a writing not binding *311upon Head. The power of attorney granted by Head’s letter of March 9th to Wollmann was in writing and was in clear and explicit and unambiguous terms. The court could not, therefore, legally consider any extraneous proof in construing the note and the letter constituting the sole power relied upon for its execution on behalf of Head.
Eliminating the note, there is nothing in the Memorandum of Agreement executed by Adler Edmiston which binds, or purports to bind, Head to pay Woll-mann any money. Wollmann was advised that the note was to be signed by Head and not by Edmiston for him, and his releasing the money to Edmiston before presenting the note to Head for his signature, when the evidence shows that he was easily available, was completely unjustified.
Wollmann knew within a very short time after the execution of the papers by Edmiston that Head was not going to sign a note in the terms of the one sued on. Head’s reason was clear. He understood that, simultaneously with the closing of the deal, Edmiston and Butter-field were going to place stock with Woll-mann “to satisfy the $50,000.00 furnished us.” The trial court found the stock to be worth that amount of money— “This stock was then jointly owned by Edmiston and Butterfield, and had a value of some $2 a share.” The majority opinion rejects that finding by the court below while accepting the residue of its findings. Faced with a record containing as much vague and equivocal testimony on the part of all of the parties as this one, I do not feel justified in accepting some of the fact findings of the court below and rejecting others. It is my feeling that the court below committed an error of law in holding Head liable under the “deal” when Head categorically refused to sign the only thing which could obligate him personally to Wollmann. He had, without dispute as far as I can find, been led to believe that Wollmann was to be satisfied by the Wymotex stock. “Satisfy” is not a word of ambiguous, equivocal or uncertain meaning.2
3
The undisputed proof of Wollmann’s dealings with Head is susceptible of no other construction but that he knew that Head had refused to sign a paper under which he would be personally bound to pay the $50,000. When he declined to sign the note because Wollmann did not have the proper papers, Wollmann took his papers back to his home in a distant state and kept them without ever mentioning the matter of a note from Head or making any demand for payment of a note for a period of more than four years. If, having parted with his $50,-000 without getting Head’s signature on the note, Wollmann wanted to protect himself, he had ample opportunity to begin action immediately following Head’s refusal, which would have prevented the $50,000 from being expended by Edmiston or anyone else. He failed to do so and demonstrated to Head and to everyone else that he was not relying on any supposed obligation of Head to answer to him personally for the money he had advanced. This construction by the two of the rights and obligations subsisting between them appears from evidence which is, in my judgment, uncon-tradicted.
The other theory of liability, presumably accepted by the majority, is that casually adverted to by the court below that Head was liable to Wollmann for failure to carry out his written agreement to sign a note. The first answer to this is that the contract would be unenforceable, because the kind of note to be executed by Head was not described in the writing. An agreement to make a contract must set forth all of the terms of the contract to be executed or it will be unenforceable.3 Nobody contends, *312therefore, that the note which Head referred to and which was executed by Edmiston in negotiable form was intended to be what on its face it purported to be. It was to be a note imposing an obligation different from that spelled out by the terms of the note sued on.
It is plain, moreover, that any action against Head for failure to carry out his contract to sign a note was barred by Article 5527 of the Texas Code requiring an action on an indebtedness evidenced by contract in writing to be brought within four years after the cause of action accrues. This action was brought nearly three months after the expiration of the four year period of limitation.
The court below summarized its basic findings in the sentence: “I find further that the ‘Memorandum of Agreement’ did no more than reduce to writing the oral understanding previously arrived at between the parties, and to which Head had assented on or before March 9, 1953.” It seems to me that what the court did was to endeavor to construct an obligation from the jumble of writings and testimony about them, and this was not permissible under the suit as filed and prosecuted.
Even if the court had the right to permit the unambiguous writings upon which alone I think the case should be decided to be varied, amended and supplemented by the testimony of contemporaneous negotiations between the parties, I think the contract it enforced by its judgment is too unrealistic and lacking in mutuality to have our approval. Under its terms, Wollmann, having made considerable money risking his capital in other oil “gambles,” suddenly turned money-lender, making a loan to three joint venturers with him, one of whom he had, according to his amended complaint, investigated and found worth the money, accompanied by security undis-putedly adequate to satisfy the loan. In addition, he had an assignment of the first oil runs as further protection. And, finally, he was to receive a bonus of a half interest in the well — as much as the other three joint venturers together. Leaving out of view that he did not conceive the idea of attempting enforcement of the note against Head until more than four years had elapsed, we are asked to by-pass the writings and create from the sharply disputed testimony a contractual arrangement which, in my opinion, is at war with reason and with the pattern of like joint ventures which have come before the courts. See, e. g., Stricker v. Morgan, 5 Cir., 1959, 268 F.2d 882; Baker v. Nason, 5 Cir., 1956, 236 F.2d 483; Sample v. Romine, 1942, 193 Miss. 706, 8 So.2d 257, 9 So.2d 643, 10 So.2d 346 and McCartney v. McKendrick, 1956, 226 Miss. 562, 85 So.2d 164. I think it is safe, in a situation such as faces us here, to stick to the writings. Both law and “high justice” will be served better by such a course. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
PER CURIAM.
The petitions for rehearing in the above styled and numbered cause are hereby denied.
Judge CAMERON dissents from the portion of the order denying the Petition for Rehearing of Appellant Head and concurs in the residue.

. Wollmann’s original complaint copied the note in the body of it and alleged “In so executing and delivering said note, defendant Edmiston was acting on his own behalf, and as agent for Head and Butterfield, and was expressly authorized in writing by Head and Butterfield to execute and deliver said note as an obligation binding upon both of them. By reason of the premises, the defendants Head and Edmiston, together with Butterfield, jointly and severally obligated themselves to pay the said note according to its tenor and effect.”
In his amended complaint filed over Head’s protest and after all of the evidence was in, Wollmann again copied the note, referred to the contract of March 10th executed by Edmiston and charged again: “In so executing and delivering said note, and in executing the said contract, defendant Edmiston was acting on his own behalf, and as agent for Head and Butterfield, who were, both on and prior to March 10, 1953, associated with him as partners in the development of the lease * * * referred to. In addition, Edmiston was expressly authorized in writing by both Head and Butterfield to execute and deliver the above described contract and note as obligations binding upon both of them. * * * ”
Thereupon he copied in the body of the amended complaint Head’s letter to him on March 9th wherein Head stated that Edmiston was authorized to close the deal, but that he would sign the note.
The only prayer of the original complaint was repeated in the amended complaint: “Wherefore, premises considered, plaintiff prays * * * that upon final trial he have judgment against them, jointly and severally, for the sum of $50,-000.00, together with interest thereon at the rate of two per cent per annum from March 10, 1953 until the date of judgment, plus ten per cent of the amount due as attorney’s fees * * thus demonstrating anew that he was suing upon the note.
His brief before us is devoted in considerable part to an effort to support his cross appeal for interest and attorney’s fees as provided in the note.

. Webster’s New World Dictionary, 3953, p. 1295, defines the transitive verb “satisfy” as meaning: “5. (a) To give what is due to, (b) to discharge (an obligation, debt, etc.); settle in full.” 78 O.J.S. at page 582, gives a similar definition.

. In appellee’s brief it is stated: “The promissory note, though negotiable on its *312face, was payable on a contingency, being the failure of the oil well to produce a sufficient return to reimburse * * * [Wollmann].”