Schiller v. Elick

37 Citing cases

  1. Roquemore v. Ford Motor Company

    400 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1968)   Cited 5 times

    Second, Roquemore argues that even if he did occupy a fiduciary relationship with Ford at the outset, his offer of sale to Ford and the execution of the option contract converted the relationship to one of arms-length seller and purchaser. Roquemore's contentions have been expressly answered by the Texas Supreme Court in Schiller v. Elick, 1951, 150 Tex. 363, 240 S.W.2d 997. In that case the defendant Elick, a bank employee, had obtained a buyer for the plaintiff's farm and had aided the parties in consummating the transaction.

  2. Chemetron Corp. v. Business Funds, Inc.

    682 F.2d 1149 (5th Cir. 1982)   Cited 136 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a fully litigated, if non-final, decision enjoys issue-preclusive effect

    The existence of such a duty depends on whether there is a fiduciary or confidential relationship between the parties, which is usually a question of fact for the jury. See, e.g., Schiller v. Elick, 240 S.W.2d 997, 999 (Tex. 1951). But see Keeton, Fraud — Concealment and Non-Disclosure, 15 Tex.L.Rev. 1, 39-40 (1936) (arguing that duty to disclose should always be a question for the judge).

  3. Clinkenbeard v. Central Southwest Oil Corp.

    526 F.2d 649 (5th Cir. 1976)   Cited 19 times
    Implying a factual finding that the district court did not state, but was necessary to its conclusion

    Thus, at the moment that Tom Allen notified Clinkenbeard that he had won a lease, the agency relationship terminated as a matter of law; all that Central agreed to do had been done. The case of Schiller v. Elick, 150 Tex. 363, 240 S.W.2d 997 (1951), is not to the contrary. In that case, the defendant argued that the execution of a sales contract by his fiduciary and him operated to terminate their fiduciary relationship as a matter of law.

  4. Thigpen v. Locke

    363 S.W.2d 247 (Tex. 1962)   Cited 445 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that informal fiduciary duty was not established where parties did not testify to facts “other than their own subjective feelings” to show that relationship was one of trust and confidence

    With the issue squarely drawn before us, we held that whether facts existed which would create a confidential relationship was for the jury or trier of the facts to decide. In the later case of Schiller v. Elick, 150 Tex. 363, 240 S.W.2d 997, 999, we held that whether a confidential relationship existed as a predicate for imposition of a constructive trust was 'a question of fact.' It could hardly be otherwise once we recognize that confidential relationships are not confined to legal relationships but may grow out of informal social and business relations.

  5. ARA Automotive Group v. Central Garage, Inc.

    124 F.3d 720 (5th Cir. 1997)   Cited 31 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting factors such as sharing profits or losses are more dispositive of establishing a fiduciary relationship than the length of the relationship

    Id. at 559. Citing Schiller v. Elick, 150 Tex. 363, 240 S.W.2d 997, 1000 (1951); Fitz-Gerald v. Hull, 150 Tex. 39, 237 S.W.2d 256, 261 (1951); MacDonald v. Follett, 142 Tex. 616, 180 S.W.2d 334, 339 (1944); Gaines v. Hamman, 163 Tex. 618, 358 S.W.2d 557 (1962). The parallels between the present case and the previous cases are obvious, yet Central Garage's briefs make no attempt to distinguish them.

  6. Norman v. Apache Corp.

    19 F.3d 1017 (5th Cir. 1994)   Cited 812 times
    Holding that while Rules 8 and 9(b) are to be harmonized, "Rule 8 has never been read to eviscerate Rule 9(b)'s requirement that an averment of fraud must be stated with particularity."

    The owners correctly state that under Texas law, the determination of whether a fiduciary relationship exists between the parties is a question of fact for the jury. Schiller v. Elick, 240 S.W.2d 997, 999 (Tex. 1951). However, that the determination of whether a fiduciary relationship exists is a fact question did not abolish the owners' burden to come forward with specific facts demonstrating that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial after Apache moved for summary judgment and offered evidence that no fiduciary relationship existed.

  7. Lee v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

    943 F.2d 554 (5th Cir. 1991)   Cited 18 times
    Finding that when retailer intended to profit from land purchased from real estate developer, the retailer did not put the developer's interests above its own

    (facts of the contractual dealings illuminate the question of fiduciary duty). See, e.g., Schiller v. Elick, 240 S.W.2d 997, 1000 (Tex. 1951); Fitz Gerald v. Hull, 237 S.W.2d 256, 261 (Tex. 1951); MacDonald v. Follett, 180 S.W.2d 334, 339 (Tex. 1944); Gaines v. Hamman, 358 S.W.2d 557 (1962).See, Schiller, supra; Fitz-Gerald, supra (prospective joint venturers); Texas Bank and Trust Co. v. Moore, 595 S.W.2d 502, 507 (Tex. 1980).

  8. Netvet Grp. v. Fagin

    Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-1934-BH (N.D. Tex. Dec. 14, 2011)   Cited 2 times

    Generally, whether a fiduciary or confidential relationship exists is a question of fact. See Schiller v. Elick, 240 S.W.2d 997,999 (Tex. 1951); see also Berry v. First Nat'l Bank of Olney, 894 S.W.2d 558, 560 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no writ). Here, the facts as alleged in the amended complaint are sufficient to giver rise to an inference of a fiduciary or confidential relationship between Plaintiff and Colonial. The amended complaint contains allegations suggesting that Fagin, a senior loan officer at Colonial, played a significant role in Plaintiff's hiring of IBI as a subcontractor, had intimate discussions with Plaintiff about IBI's financial stability, assured Plaintiff that IBI's financial condition was secure, and even when he acknowledged IBI's financial distress, assured Plaintiff that Colonial and IBI would ensure completion of its project and security of its money.

  9. Crim Truck & Tractor Co. v. Navistar International Transportation Corp.

    823 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. 1992)   Cited 448 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the fact that one businessman trusts another, and relies upon his promise to perform a contract, does not rise to a confidential relationship, even if the relationship has been a cordial one, and one of long duration

    The existence of a confidential relationship is usually a question of fact. See MacDonald, 142 Tex. at 623, 180 S.W.2d at 339; Schiller v. Elick, 150 Tex. 363, 240 S.W.2d 997, 1000 (1951). Although we recognize that the existence of a confidential relationship is ordinarily a question of fact, when the issue is one of no evidence, it becomes a question of law.

  10. Texas Bank and Trust Co. v. Moore

    595 S.W.2d 502 (Tex. 1980)   Cited 210 times
    Holding that a fiduciary relationship exists where "`a special confidence is reposed in another who in equity and good conscience is bound to act in good faith and with due regard to the interests of the one reposing confidence.'"

    Even if this is the type of case not to be tried on issues of lack of capacity or undue influence, or both, as to which I express no opinion, whether these friends or relatives have entered into a confidential relationship is a question of fact, and is not, as this court holds, a question of law. Schiller v. Elick, 150 Tex. 363, 240 S.W.2d 997 (1951); MacDonald v. Follett, 142 Tex. 616, 180 S.W.2d 334 (1944); Ginther v. Taub, 570 S.W.2d 516 (Tex.Civ.App. Waco 1978, writ ref'd n. r. e.). I do not read Stephens County Museum, Inc. v. Swenson, cited by the court, as holding that there was a fiduciary relationship as a matter of law.