disputed claim in Texas

1967Keefe v. Vogle, 36 Iowa 87 ; Babcock v. Hawkins, 23 Vt. 561 ; 1 Daniel, Neg.Inst. § 205; 1 Add.Cont. § 14.”’ Although Dr. Maddox denies in his affidavit that he had any actual knowledge of the fraud until after he had executed the renewal note on December 8, 1958, he admits in his affidavit that he wrote the letter to Mr. Harris on December 5, 1957, in which he included the title opinions showing that Oldham had not in fact conveyed him the title to the minerals under the Cooper-Neel tract.

1902So a note is supported by a sufficient consideration if executed to secure the abandonment of suit brought to enforce a doubtful right, or in compromise of a disputed claim in good faith, though it ultimately appears that the claim was without merit.” Citing Keope v. Vagle, 36 Iowa, 87 ; Babcock v. Hawkins, 23 Vt., 561 ; 1 Dan.

1967The rule in this state was laid down by the Supreme Court of Texas in 1892 in Hunter v. Lanius, 82 Tex. 677 , 18 S.W. 201 , that: “ * * * a note is supported by a sufficient consideration, if executed to secure the abandonment of a suit brought to enforce a doubtful right, or in compromise of a disputed claim made in good faith, though it ultimately appears that the claim was without merit.” (Emphasis added.) 18 S.W. 205 , col. 1.

1967The rule in this state was laid down by the Supreme Court of Texas in 1892 in Hunter v. Lanius, 82 Tex. 677 , 18 S.W. 201 , that: “ * * * a note is supported by a sufficient consideration, if executed to secure the abandonment of a suit brought to enforce a doubtful right, or in compromise of a disputed claim made in good faith, though it ultimately appears that the claim was without merit.” (Emphasis added.) 18 S.W. 205 , col. 1.

1967Keefe v. Vogle, 36 Iowa 87 ; Babcock v. Hawkins, 23 Vt. 561 ; 1 Daniel, Neg.Inst. § 205; 1 Add.Cont. § 14.”’ Although Dr. Maddox denies in his affidavit that he had any actual knowledge of the fraud until after he had executed the renewal note on December 8, 1958, he admits in his affidavit that he wrote the letter to Mr. Harris on December 5, 1957, in which he included the title opinions showing that Oldham had not in fact conveyed him the title to the minerals under the Cooper-Neel tract.

1902So a note is supported by a sufficient consideration if executed to secure the abandonment of suit brought to enforce a doubtful right, or in compromise of a disputed claim in good faith, though it ultimately appears that the claim was without merit.” Citing Keope v. Vagle, 36 Iowa, 87 ; Babcock v. Hawkins, 23 Vt., 561 ; 1 Dan.

2016The disputed clause gives the Hyders a “cost-free (except only its portion of production taxes) overriding royalty of five percent (5.0%) of gross production obtained from each [directionally drilled] well.” This Court has held that “[a]n overriding royalty is an interest in the oil and gas produced at the surface, free of the expense of production.” Paradigm Oil, Inc. v. Retamco Operating, Inc., 372 S.W.3d 177 , 180 n. 1 (Tex.2012) (quoting Stable Energy, L.P. v. Newberry, 999 S.W.2d 538, 542 (Tex.App.-Austin 1999, pet. denied)).

2015The disputed clause gives the Hyders a “cost-free (except only its portion of production taxes) overriding royalty of five percent (5.0%) of gross production obtained from each [directionally drilled] well.” This Court has held that “[a]n overriding royalty is an interest in the oil and gas produced at the surface, free of the expense of production.” Paradigm Oil, Inc. v. Retamco Operating, Inc., 372 S.W.3d 177 , 180 n.1 (Tex. 2012) (quoting Stable Energy, L.P. v. Newberry, 999 S.W.2d 538, 542 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, pet. denied)).

2000See Lubart , 154 F.3d at 541 -42 ; Gajda , 158 F.3d at 804 -805 ; Ball , 163 F.3d at 309 .

2000See Lubart, 154 F.3d at 541-42 ; Gujda, 158 F.3d at 804-805 ; Ball, 163 F.3d at 309 .

2000See Lubart , 154 F.3d at 541 -42 ; Gajda , 158 F.3d at 804 -805 ; Ball , 163 F.3d at 309 .

2000See Lubart, 154 F.3d at 541-42 ; Gujda, 158 F.3d at 804-805 ; Ball, 163 F.3d at 309 .

1992Cox, 658 S.W.2d at 671 , citing Bryant v. State, 627 S.W.2d 180, 183 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982) (evidence insufficient to support conviction for theft of landscaping plants where controversy between two parties to a verbal landscaping construction contract centered not upon removal of plants from the job site but upon the work progress and periodic payments therefor).

1992Cox, 658 S.W.2d at 671 , citing Bryant v. State, 627 S.W.2d 180, 183 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982) (evidence insufficient to support conviction for theft of landscaping plants where controversy between two parties to a verbal landscaping construction contract centered not upon removal of plants from the job site but upon the work progress and periodic payments therefor).

1967The rule was followed in Walker-Smith Co. v. Pouns, Tex.Civ.App., Austin, 256 S.W. 613 (no writ), in which the court said: “It is the universal holding of courts that the execution of a note in settlement of a doubtful or disputed claim is supported by a sufficient consideration.” 256 S.W. 615 , col. 1.

1935We believe that the issues in this case are controlled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hunter v. Lanius, 82 Tex. 677 , 18 S.W. 201, 205 , in which the following language is used: “So, a note is supported by a sufficient consideration, if executed to secure the abandonment of a suit brought to enforce a doubtful right, or in compromise of a disputed claim made in good faith, though it ultimately appears that the claim was without merit.” See, also, Walker-Smith Co. v. Pouns (Tex.Civ.App.) 256 S.W. 613 .

1967It is well settled that the compromise and settlement of a disputed claim is a valid consideration for a promissory note, even though it later appears that the claim was without merit. 11 Am.Jur.2d, Bills and Notes, § 231, p. 260 ; 9 Tex.Jur.2d, Bills and Notes, § 46, p. 58; Citizens Garage Co. v. Wilson, Tex. Civ.App., 252 S.W. 186 , no wr. hist.; Aydelotte v. Anderson, Tex.Civ.App., 284 S.W. 2d 804 , wr. ref. n.r.e.; Hunter v. Lanius, 82 Tex. 677 , 18 S.W. 201 .

1931App.) 252 S. W. 186 , cited by appellant.

1916App. 250 , 94 S. W. 136 : “Among the numerous modifications and exceptions, none, however, is better established than that if the claim, though evidenced by a bill or note, is in dispute an agreement, by way of compromise, to receive a part payment of the disputed claim in settlement of the whole demand, when performed, will discharge it.” See, also, Hunt v. Ogden, 58 Tex. Civ.

1916App. 443 , 125 S. W. 386 ; Cristler v. Williams, 62 Tex. Civ.

1914Hunt v. Ogden, 125 S. W. 386 ; Daugherty v. Herndon, 27 Tex. Civ.

1914Daugherty v. Herndon, 27 Tex. Civ.

2021“However, doubts should be resolved in favor of the free and unrestricted use of the premises, and any ambiguity must be strictly construed against the party seeking to enforce the restrictive covenant.” Buckner, 133 S.W.3d at 297 ; see also Tarr, 556 S.W.3d at 280 (internal quotations, citations, and alterations omitted) (“[C]ovenants restricting the free use of property are not favored, because the right of individuals to use their own property as they wish remains one of the most fundamental rights that individual property owners possess.”). (c) Analysis The disputed clause is a not a coven

2021See Pacheco v. Rodriguez, 600 S.W.3d 401 , 407 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2020, no pet.) (“[T]he unique aspect of the TCPA convinces us that we must, as part of our de novo review, be satisfied that the movant has met the initial burden under the statute to show the disputed claim is based on, relates to, or is in response to the exercise of free speech, petition, or associational rights.”); Joselevitz, 524 S.W.3d at 859 . 6In their motion to dismiss, they elaborate on these communications as pertaining to whether “they should ask Dr. Pustilnik to perform the autopsy, despite their concerns about his

2020Id. at 406 . 6 personally or as Leo’s Auto Collision, Inc., when conducting business relevant to the disputed claim.

2020The court further noted the disputed claim was sufficient consideration even though Mildred and Helen’s claim was in fact “unfounded.” Id. (quoting 15 C.J.S.