From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

W. C. Bowman Lumber v. Pierson

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth
Jul 1, 1911
139 S.W. 618 (Tex. Civ. App. 1911)

Summary

In Bowman Lumber Co. v. Pierson, 139 S.W. 618, this court held that a corporation chartered for the purpose of buying and selling lumber and other building materials had no power to bind itself as guarantor for the performance by a contractor of a building contract, and that such attempted contract was ultra vires.

Summary of this case from Hollis Cotton Oil, Light v. Marrs Lake

Opinion

May 27, 1911. Rehearing Denied July 1, 1911.

Appeal from Stonewall County Court; Ernest Herring, Judge.

Action by S. B. Pierson and another against the W. C. Bowman Lumber Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed and rendered.

D. M. Oldham, Jr., for appellant.

T. E. Knight, R. M. Reed, Thedore Mack, and Arrington Carter, for appellees.


Appellant, W. C. Bowman Lumber Company appeals from a judgment rendered against it as surety on A. T. Robinson's bond, given to the First National Bank of Aspermont, to guarantee the compliance with a certain building contract. We find it unnecessary to decide the questions presented by appellant, other than its contention that the act of signing such bond was ultra vires and void. Whatever benefits accrued or could have accrued to appellant by reason of its becoming Robinson's surety were certainly not direct, but at most only indirect, or by way of reaction, as it were, and this seems to be the test of corporate powers as laid down by the Supreme Court, in Northside Railway Co. v. Worthington, 88 Tex. 562, 30 S.W. 1055, 53 Am.St.Rep. 778.

The precise question of the right of a lumber company chartered for the purpose of buying and selling lumber and other building materials to bind itself as guarantor for the performance of a building contract by another is decided in Re S. P. Smith Lumber Co. (D.C.) 132 F. 620, by the federal District Court of this district in favor of the contention of appellant. Many authorities are there cited, and the reasoning seems sound.

The case of Wittmer Lumber Co. v. Rice, 23 Ind. App. 586, 55 N.E. 868, cited by appellee, does not decide that such act of a lumber company corporation is not ultra vires, but does decide under the facts of that case that the corporation was estopped (having received direct benefits under the contract) from pleading the invalidity of its act. In this case the material had been sold by appellant, and its signing the bond was a pure gratuity. There is no question of estoppel involved. Our conclusion that the act was ultra vires renders the contract void and disposes of all questions in the case.

The judgment is therefore reversed and here rendered for appellant.


Summaries of

W. C. Bowman Lumber v. Pierson

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth
Jul 1, 1911
139 S.W. 618 (Tex. Civ. App. 1911)

In Bowman Lumber Co. v. Pierson, 139 S.W. 618, this court held that a corporation chartered for the purpose of buying and selling lumber and other building materials had no power to bind itself as guarantor for the performance by a contractor of a building contract, and that such attempted contract was ultra vires.

Summary of this case from Hollis Cotton Oil, Light v. Marrs Lake
Case details for

W. C. Bowman Lumber v. Pierson

Case Details

Full title:W. C. BOWMAN LUMBER CO. v. PIERSON et al

Court:Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth

Date published: Jul 1, 1911

Citations

139 S.W. 618 (Tex. Civ. App. 1911)

Citing Cases

Taylor Feed Pen Co. v. Taylor Nat. Bank

The transaction was simply one of a corporation undertaking to secure the debt of another corporation, and,…

Newton v. Houston Hot Well Improvement

"On the foregoing facts the court concludes as a matter of law that the execution of the note by the Houston…