Farmers' Guar. St. Bank v. Burrus Mill E

18 Citing cases

  1. Pierce v. Willson

    114 Tex. 136 (Tex. 1924)   Cited 1 times

    3. — Same — Advancements — Necessity. The ruling herein that the landlord, to establish a lien for money advanced to his lessee to enable him to make a crop, had the burden of showing that it was "necessary" for that purpose, is not in conflict with that in Green v. Scales (where the landlord assumed the burden of proof, and the ruling related only to what constituted a prima facie case); nor was it in conflict with Farmers etc. St. Bk. of Jacksonville v. Mill Elevator Co., 207 S.W. 400; Hazelrigg v. Naranjo, 184 S.W. 316; Sullivan v. Fant, 160 S.W. 612; or Pullman Co. v. Cox, 120 S.W. 1058; none of which were cases of landlord and tenant. (Pp. 141, 142).

  2. Soldau v. Organon Inc.

    860 F.2d 355 (9th Cir. 1988)   Cited 1 times

    Since Soldau's contractual obligation to release Organon in return for Organon's obligation to make the enhanced severance payment arose when Soldau deposited his acceptance in the post office mailbox, his subsequent withdrawal of the acceptance was ineffectual.See, e.g., Mansfield v. Smith, 88 Wis.2d 575, 277 N.W.2d 740, 746 (1979); Morrison v. Thoelke, 155 So.2d 889, 905 (Fla.App. 1963); Farmers' Guar. State Bank v. Burrus Mill Elevator Co., 207 S.W. 400, 404 (Tex.Civ.App. 1918); Canterbury v. Bank of Sparta, 91 Wis. 53, 64 N.W. 311, 312 (1895); 1 Corbin, supra, note 3 § 80, at 342-43; 1 Williston, supra, note 4, § 86, at 78; Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 63, comment c. But cf. Guardian Nat'l Bank v. Huntington County State Bank, 187 N.E. 388, 391 (Ind. 1933). Traders Nat'l Bank v. First Nat'l Bank, 142 Tenn. 229, 217 S.W. 977, 979 (1920).

  3. Vogel et al. v. Allen

    13 S.W.2d 340 (Tex. 1929)   Cited 18 times
    In Vogel v. Allen, 118 Tex. 196, 13 S.W.2d 340, 342, it is said: "The object in construing a deed is to ascertain the intention of the parties.

    Where conveyances provide for an equal division between the grantors and the grantee, of any profits made by the grantee in sales to third persons of oil and gas rights in the land conveyed, and such profits are thereafter received, a trust in such profit fund is created from the time of the receipt thereof by the grantee, and he is liable to account to the heirs of the grantors for the grantors' share thereof. Attaway v. Bank, 15 Mo. App., 578; Bank v. Burrus Mill, 207 S.W. 400; Becht v. Martin, 37 Tex. 719; Booth v. Bank, 54 P. 320; Blanch v. DeBlanc, 62 S.W. 134; Brotherton v. Weatherby, 73 Tex. 473; Calder v. Eaton, 12 N.W. 892; Cameron v. Nelson, 77 N.W. 771; Casper v. Whitney, 3 Hill, 95; Clark v. Haney, 62 Tex. 141; Coffin v. Douglass, 61 Tex. 406; Craycroft v. Crawford, 285 S.W. 275; Darrow v. Calkins, 154 N.Y. 503; Davis v. Davis, 49 S.W. 726; Day v. Williams, 193 S.W. 239; Eaton v. Barnes, 49 S.E. 593; Faulk v. Dashiell, 62 Tex. 642; Frank v. Williams, 37 Tex. 24; Frier v. Lake, 115 Ill. 662; Joyce v. Bocquin, 149 N.E. 360; K. O. L. M. v. Hair, 192 S.W. 801; Laguerenne v. Farrar, 61 S.W. 953; Lamb, Ex Parte, 215 P. 109; Logan v. Brown, 95 P. 441; McAllen v. Alonzo, 102 S.W. 475; McBride v. Briggs, 199 S.W. 341; McCarthy v. Woods, 87 S.W. 405; McDonald v. Dexter, 85 N.E. 209; Mills v. Thomas, 144 N.E. 412; Missouri etc. R. Co. v. Carter Bro., 95 Tex. 461; Mohn v. Mohn, 13 N.E. 859; Molera v. Cooper, 160 P. 231; Ragsdale v. Robinson, 48 Tex. 379; Sa

  4. Mills v. Mauk

    306 S.W.2d 135 (Tex. Civ. App. 1957)

    See also McAfee v. Travis Gas Corp., 137 Tex. 314, 153 S.W.2d 442, points 18 and 19, at page 448. Perhaps we should say that appellant tendered no testimony contradicting the story that appellee related as to the time and manner in which this entire transaction was first begun and carried to completion. For statement of the rule see Farmers' Guaranty State Bank v. Burrus Mill Elevator Co., Tex.Civ.App., 207 S.W. 400, point 1, at page 403. See also 16 Tex.Dig., Evidence, k76, for collation of authorities; also 2 Tex.Jur. 519.

  5. Greenspun v. Greenspun

    211 S.W.2d 977 (Tex. Civ. App. 1948)   Cited 4 times
    Holding there was no evidence that any stock or certificate evidencing stock was transferred to appellee

    Applicable here is the rule, "Where the proof tends to establish a fact and * * * it is within the power and to the interest of the opposing party (Morris) to disprove it, if false the silence of the opposing party not only strengthens the probative force of the affirmative proof, but of itself is clothed with a certain probative force." Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Nelson, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 223, 54 S.W. 624; Farmers' Guaranty State Bank v. Burrus Mill Elevator Co., Tex. Civ. App. 207 S.W. 400; Central Motor Co. v. Roberson, Tex. Civ. App. 139 S.W.2d 287; Bailey v. Hicks, 16 Tex. 222, 227. In Aviation Credit Corporation of New York v. University Aerial Service Corporation, Tex. Civ. App. 59 S.W.2d 870, 873, where it was contended that there was no evidence of the value of property attached and replevied, it was held that the officer's estimate of value was some evidence.

  6. Norris Bros. v. Mattinson

    145 S.W.2d 204 (Tex. Civ. App. 1940)   Cited 12 times
    Holding law requires each and every person traveling upon or across public thoroughfares to keep proper lookout for his own safety

    The silence of one in the best position to know the truth will add probative strength of the slight testimony offered by one whose duty it is to establish agency. Hill Co. v. Fricke, Tex.Civ.App. 135 S.W.2d 582, writ dismissed, judgment correct; Farmers' Guaranty State Bank v. Burrus Mill Elevator Co., Tex.Civ.App. 207 S.W. 400; Pullman Palace-Car Co. v. Nelson, 22 Tex.Civ.App. 223, 54 S.W. 624; Bailey v. Hicks, 16 Tex. 222. Mr. Carter, who is apparently the manager of defendant's business in Fort Worth, did not testify in the instant case.

  7. Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank v. Harrison

    135 S.W.2d 573 (Tex. Civ. App. 1940)   Cited 3 times

    " 17 Tex.Jur. para. 87, page 306. Many authorities might be cited to the same effect, such as Barrera v. Gannaway, 130 Tex. 142, 105 S.W.2d 876, opinion by Justice Martin, Commission of Appeals; Farmers' Guaranty State Bank v. Burrus Mill Elevator Co., Tex.Civ.App. 207 S.W. 400, and cases cited; Galveston H. S. A. R. Co. v. Watson, Tex.Civ.App. 3 S.W.2d 921, and cases cited; 22 C.J. pages 115 to 118. Appellant cites Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank v. Colbert, Tex. Civ. App. 98 S.W.2d 239, in which it was held that a vice-president has no inherent power, by virtue of his official position, to bind the corporation by a contract entered into by him for the corporation.

  8. Kadane v. Clark

    134 S.W.2d 448 (Tex. Civ. App. 1939)   Cited 10 times

    Agency cannot be proved by the words and acts alone of the agent, hence when the principal remains quiet and declines to testify when such agency and its extent are at issue, the silence of the alleged principal not only strengthens the probative force of the affirmative truth, but of itself is clothed with certain probative force. Farmers' Guaranty State Bank v. Burrus Mill Elevator Co., Tex. Civ. App. 207 S.W. 400; Pullman Palace-Car Co. v. Nelson, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 223, 54 S.W. 624; Bailey v. Hicks, 16 Tex. 222. Many more authorities could be cited from the early decisions, but we think those mentioned are sufficient.

  9. Barker v. Mosby

    118 S.W.2d 946 (Tex. Civ. App. 1938)   Cited 1 times

    It could also have reasonably inferred that since with full knowledge that the broker had presented the purchaser to him, and that he had accepted his service, and had added $2,000 to the purchase price asked for the land, that he accepted such services under such circumstances as would require the payment of the commission. Stevens v. Karr, 119 Tex. 479, 33 S.W.2d 725; Farmers' Guaranty State Bank v. Burrus M. E. Co., Tex. Civ. App. 207 S.W. 400; Marr-Piper Co. v. Bullis, Tex.Com.App., 1 S.W.2d 572; 2 Tex.Jur. 501. We find no error in the judgment of the trial court, and it is affirmed.

  10. Western Shoe v. Amarillo Nat. Bank

    42 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Civ. App. 1931)   Cited 8 times

    Chandler v. Meckling, 22 Tex. 44; Needham v. State, 19 Tex. 332; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Tillman, 84 Tex. 31, 35, 19 S.W. 294." Farmers' Guaranty State Bank v. Burrus Mill Elev. Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 207 S.W. 400, 403. The appellee contends that the court was not required to believe the testimony of these witnesses, as they were both interested parties.