FROM THE ARCHIVES

Editor’s Note: The January-February issue of The Houston Lawyer focused on stories of Houston’s legal history, gleaned from the Harris County District Clerk’s Document Preservation Project. Members of The Houston Lawyer editorial board were given access to the preserved files, and they have written a series of case summaries that offer a glimpse into the gems found in these early records. Some of these cases involved the city’s most luminous early leaders and its most venerated institutions. Some involve colorful, world-renown characters with a Houston connection. Space constraints did not allow all of the case summaries to be published in that issue, so The Houston Lawyer will continue to feature short articles on similar cases in some of its upcoming issues.

An Interesting Early Civil Case

By Steven G. Gyeszly

Filed on March 25, 1838, the matter of Scott and O’Brien v. Couldry is one of several interesting early civil cases filed in Harris County. In Couldry, petitioners sought an injunction to stay enforcement of a judgment originally based on a contract to provide salvaging and transportation services for their stranded steamboat. The case evokes an era that has long since passed. Yet certain elements, like the race to file in a more favorable venue, are all too familiar to today’s litigators.

Petitioners explained that after the steamboat “Sam Houston” ran aground at the City of Houston landing, petitioners engaged the services of a sloop to salvage and transport the boat’s cargo. The petitioners claimed that because the sloop owner was “indebted to [the] petitioners in a much larger sum[,]” the petitioners “paid” the sloop owner for his services by crediting their account. The sloop owner then filed suit against the petitioners in county court. After the county court case was dismissed with costs assessed against the sloop owner, the sloop owner filed a new suit in the magistrate’s court. Petitioners raised a number of problems with the new action, including that not all petitioners were served and that the only petitioner who was served was leaving Houston for important business elsewhere. However, the petitioners hired an attorney to defend their interests in the magistrate court action. Unfortunately, petitioners’ counsel “wholly neglected to appear and attend to the case upon the day of trial and thereby judgment by default went against [the] petitioners.”

Thus, “in view of the above named facts[,]” the petitioners requested that the Harris County Court grant a “writ of injunction” so that the execution of the magistrate court judgment “may be stayed and the matter investigated and decided[.]” Judge James H. Robinson issued the injunction and required petitioners to “giv[] bond and security in double the amount in costs.” Other documents indicate the injunction was later dissolved, with petitioners assessed a cost of $ 30.25, which included filing fees, court costs and taxes.

While the court filings provide only a tantalizing hint of all the facts and issues underlying the suit—such  as how the original debt developed and the petitioners’ attorney’s excuse for failing to appear before the magistrate—the filings do show that for almost 170 years, Harris County courts have ensured that justice is served and that parties have their day in court.

An Early Criminal Case Filed in Harris County

By Steven G. Gyeszly

This 1839 larceny case demonstrates that in the 19th century, “get tough on crime” had an entirely different meaning. In this case, brought by the District Attorney for the Republic of Texas against James Adams, a jury of his peers found Adams guilty of larceny. Interestingly, each juror’s identity was listed in the verdict. While the facts of the case, including precisely what Adams had stolen, are unclear, the court’s sentence is unequivocal.

First, the court ordered the defendant to repay “[t]wo-hundred and ninety-five dollars as well as the papers and notes specified in the Indictment.” However, repaying the money was probably the least of defendant’s concerns. The court further ordered that the defendant “receive thirty nine Lashes on his bare back, and be branded in the right hand with the letter T[.]” The court specifically required that the foregoing punishment be meted out “at some public place” in the City of Houston. Moreover, the court apparently determined that 39 lashes and a branding were not sufficient to repay defendant’s debt to society because the court further ordered that the defendant be kept in close custody both before and after the sentence was executed.

Steven Gyeszly is a trial practice and international litigation & arbitration associate at Jones Day.

The Texas Company’s Disputes Fuel Litigation in Harris County

By Robert Painter

Texaco, the ubiquitous name gracing gas station signs all over America, actually began under the moniker the Texas Company in 1902 in Beaumont.  From 1908 to 1913, before relocating to New York, its general offices were in Houston. 

By 1928, the Texas Company was the first to market refined petroleum products in all (then-existing) 48 states.  In World War II, the Texas Company was a major backer of the United States’ war effort, constructing defense installations and pipelines and offering its ocean-going tankers for use in the cause. 

But like all successful entrepreneurial companies, the Texas Company also kept a close eye on its accounts receivable during those early days when the company was headquartered in Houston, as shown by several early cases on file with the Harris County district clerk.

Cause No. 48767

In November 1909, in cause no. 48767, the Texas Company sued C.F. James for $829.  The petition alleged that it could not locate or serve the defendant because he “secretes himself so that the ordinary process of law cannot be served on him.”  According to the petition, the company solid and delivered oil to James on account, or credit, and that James refused to pay on the account.  The company further alleged that James had conveyed a 640-acre tract of land in Colorado County to Farmers National Bank in an attempt to defraud his creditors.  James defaulted, and the Texas Company obtained an interlocutory judgment to attach the 640 acres. Before that judgment became final, the case was consolidated with cause no. 48770, Texas Company v. Lakeside Rice Mill Company.

Cause No. 48770

In cause no. 48770, the Texas Company sued Lakeside Rice Mill Company, a business owned by the same C.F. James.  G.N. Brown intervened in the case.  Brown leased property from James with the agreement that Brown would provide labor to raise and harvest a rice crop, and James would provide everything else that was needed, including the land, rice seed, irrigation, machinery and lubricating oil.  After the harvest, the lease required the parties to split the profits.  The legal dispute arose when James refused to pay Brown $293.82, which Brown contended was required by the lease.  Thus, when the Texas Company sought recovery from Lakeside Rice Mill Company, Brown intervened.

In the consolidated action, the court made the interlocutory judgment in cause no.  48767 final, allowing the Texas Company to attach the 640 acres of land that had been owned by James.  In cause no. 48770, the court divided the money held by the Lakeside Rice Milling Company between the lessee, Brown and Farmers National Bank, to whom James had allegedly fraudulently conveyed the 640-acre tract.

Robert Painter is a board member of The Houston Lawyer.

< BACK TO TOP >