Page 1 - lw3765appeal

No. 5065
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Texarkana

Carr v. McGinley Corp.

105 S.W.2d 410 (Tex. Civ. App. 1937)
Decided Apr 29, 1937

No. 5065.

411 April 29, 1937. *411

Appeal from District Court, Gregg County; Austin S. Hatchell, Judge.

Suit by the McGinley Corporation against A. P. Carr, wherein defendant filed a cross-action. From the
judgment, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.
Bramlette Levy and Richard B. Levy, all of Longview, and S. L. Lewis, of Dallas, for appellant.

Robt. C. Pepper, of Fort Worth, and G. K. Gilbert, of Longview, for appellee.

HALL, Justice.

Appellant and appellee in March, 1932, purchased oil leases covering two 40-acre blocks of land in Zapata
county, thought to be oil-bearing, for a consideration of $9,000. After the purchase of said oil leases and on
March 17, 1932, they entered into a contract with one Joe M. Gier to drill well No. 1 on said land for a
consideration of $2,750. A short time after completion of well No. 1, believed to be an oil producer, well No. 2
was begun by the same drilling contractor for a like consideration and was completed as a dry hole. Well No. 2
was drilled to a greater depth than well No. 1 in effort to reach pay sand, but the effort was fruitless. Well No. 1
also failed to produce oil in paying quantities, and about May 1, 1932, it was abandoned. The contract price, or
a greater portion thereof, for drilling well No. 1 was paid, but appellant, after paying $500 of his part of the
contract for drilling well No. 2, refused to pay his portion of the balance due the contractor, leaving appellee to
pay the remainder of the contract price for well No. 2. There were other charges against both wells in addition
to the contract price of $2,750 each. This suit was brought by appellee on December 15, 1933, against appellant
to recover the amount owing by appellant on his part of the contract price of well No. 2 and other expenses
growing out of the drilling of both wells. On February 12, 1934, appellant filed his answer consisting of general
demurrer, special exceptions, and general denial. On May 31, 1935, appellant filed his first amended answer
consisting of general demurrer, special exceptions, plea in abatement, general denial, and, in addition, a cross-
action seeking recovery of the sum of $2,250, alleging as a basis therefor that he had been deceived and
defrauded by Wm. J. McGinley, president, and H. J. Heartwell, agent, of appellee, with respect to the price paid
for the leases covering the two tracts of land. He alleged that the agents of appellee, McGinley and Heartwell,
represented to him that the purchase price for the leases covering the two tracts of land was $9,000; that he
relied on said statements and paid to appellee the sum of $4,500; that the true consideration for said oil leases
was $4,500. Appellee by supplemental petition denied the allegations of fraud and deceit and alleged, further,
that any fraud charged against it in appellant's cross-action was barred by the two-year statute of limitation

1