GET THOSE NEW SIGNS FOR LIABILITY PROTECTION

            For all our ranchers, farmers and veterinarians out there – rejoice - the Texas legislature has expanded Chapter 87 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code in ways important to YOU!

            In passing Senate Bill No. 479, Texas expands the liability protections previously afforded only to those engaged in activities defined as “equine.”  The Act, now called the “Texas Farm Animal Limitation of Liability Act,” defines “farm animals” to include: an equine animal, a bovine animal, a sheep or goat, a pig or hog, a ratite (which includes an ostrich, rhea or emu), and a chicken or other fowl. 

            In regular session, the 82^nd Texas Legislature adopted the amendments to former “Texas Equine Limitation of Liability Act” to become effective immediately upon the requisite vote in the Texas House which occurred on June 17, 2011.  The new law applies to claims that accrue on or after June 17, 2011. 

            Using words like “shall” and “must,” farm animal professionals need to immediately obtain warning signs that state:

WARNING: UNDER TEXAS LAW (CHAPTER 87, CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE) A FARM ANIMAL PROFESSIONAL IS NOT LIABLE FOR AN INJURY TO OR THE DEATH OF A PARTICIPANT IN FARM ANIMAL ACTIVITIES RESULTING FROM THE INHERENT RISKS OF FARM ANIMAL ACTIVITIES.

            This goes for you too horsemen – get new signs!!

            For those involved with farm animals not equine in nature, the Act now includes activities of rodeos, “events that involve a farm animal,” and “handling, loading, or unloading” a farm animal.  Moreover, the Act now expressly covers veterinarian services, stating “farm animal activity means  . . . examining or administering medical treatment to a farm animal by a veterinarian.”

            Ranchers, farmers and equine professionals must obtain new signs containing the updated version of the Act’s warning language.  

Attorney Fees for Negligence???

For decades in Texas a person making a negligence claim involving an injury to their horse did not dare make a claim for attorney fees.  Attorney fees have universally been held to be unrecoverable in negligence actions in Texas.  This would include claims against veterinarians, trainers, boarding facilities, show facilities, haulers - essentially anyone or any place that might have the care, custody and control of a horse.

The Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code contains an abscure provision in Chapter 38 left over from legislation from the 1800s that dealt with livestock killed or injured on railways.  The provisions found in Section 38.00, states:

 A person may recover reasonable attorney's fees from an individual or
corporation, in addition to the amount of a valid claim and costs,
if the claim is for:
                                     
(6)  killed or injured stock

Until recently, there was only one other attempt to invoke this provision in a negligence case having to do with an economic injury to a Quarter Horse colt.  That court summarily refused to apply the attorney fee provision.  However, in a recent Texas trial court, a judge has found that if the plaintiff prevails on a negligence theory involving her injured horse, he might be able to recover attorney fees (provided he meets the other requirements of Chapter 38. 

The case in which this interlocutory ruling was made involves a horse that suffered injuries while boarded. The horse's owner incurred nominal veterinary bills in tending to the injuries.  The horse recovered quickly and was shown within weeks.  The plaintiffs are suing the boarding facility for the injuries and claim more than 500 times their out of pocket damages in attorney fees.

Should these plaintiffs recover attorney fees and the ruling be upheld on appeal, the case would become precedent setting for plaintiffs to recover attorney fees while making a negligence claim.  Such precedent will open the proverbial floodgates for claims of veterinary malpractice, which are frequently not pursued because the cost of hiring a lawyer without ability to ultimately recover those fees greatly outweighs the benefit of recovering a few hundred or thousand dollars incurred when the vet injured a horse.  Similarly if a horse is injured while in training, at a show, at a boarding facility because of the negligence alone of the facility, a claim can be made and attorney fees recoverable.  Such a ruling makes lawsuits of this type much more attractive to a claimant and lawyer, where in the past the amount of actual damages would not warrant bring such a case.

My own research shows that the only "claim" involving killed or injured stock for which attorney fees may be sought is a statutory claim under the Texas Transportation Code.  It just seems logical that an attorney fee recovery statute would not differentiate among animals if the intent was to allow a person to recover attorney fees for negligence.  If a vet or kennel causes injury to a dog or cat why is that claimant barred from recovering attorney fees, but if the animal is "stock" - a cow, horse, mule, etc. - a person can make a claim for attorney fees? 

I am very curious to hear peoples opinions and thoughts about this matter and whether or not someone should attempt to have the Texas legislature revise Chapter 38.

So You Want to Lease a Quarter Horse!!

In 2011, a new AQHA Rule will allow junior and adult amateur riders to lease horses to show.  This rule should greatly expand the pool of excellent horses available to a competitor, as well as continue to provide jobs for those show horses which, for one reason or another, cannot or are not being shown by their owners!  Moreover, the rule could allow a prospective buyer who is “trying” a horse, to actually take the horse to a competition and see how well matched the two may be in order to finalize a buying decision.  Whatever the reason, those considering leasing a horse must take into account a number of factors in order to avoid costly surprises down the road.

                It should go without saying that a good Equine Lease Agreement (“ELA”) will contain a detailed description of the horse being leased.[1]  In this case, the ELA will contain the horse’s AQHA registration number and registered name.  The lease should also contain information about the horse’s age and identification of the persons making the lease.  Lessees, be sure to confirm that the leasor is the registered owner of the horse!  The ELA should be for a specified duration, even if automatic renewal or month-to-month type arrangements are included.

                The leasor should want to ensure that his horse is maintained on the same feed program, and may want to specify that the horse will have his hoof care and veterinary care performed by certain named professionals.  The leasor should want to be notified in the event of any unusual or abnormal behavior or event involving his or her horse.

                Identify the conditions of use.  If this is a Western Pleasure horse, the owner may want the lessee to stipulate that the horse will be used for no other purpose.   The owner of a roping horse may not want the lessee attempting to use her horse to race barrels.  The owner of a reining horse may want to have the lessee stipulate to a particular riding and training routine!  If the horse is a stallion or mare, the owner will want to include restrictions on breeding the animal.  Many times a leasor will want to be sure their show horse remains in an approved training program, and so language about where the horse must be stabled and with whom the horse can go to shows will be important.  The leasor may also want to ensure that no one but the lessee, and/or the lessee’s trainer may ride the horse.

                The parties to a lease involving a horse that competes in money classes will need specific agreements regarding the payment and tax treatment of prize money.  Moreover, with respect to a horse being leased for a specific high performance event, the parties will want to account for the distribution of awards in their ELA.

                Insurance may or may not be an issue.  With a horse that has and may maintain a high value, the owner will want to insist that the lessee obtain or reimburse for existing insurance coverage.  On an older horse, or one otherwise nearing the end of his show career, this may not be as important.   The leasor will need a liability release and even indemnification in the event the horse causes damage to another person’s body or property while in the possession and control of the lessee.  A common example is a loose horse that causes an accident or runs over a human, typically the injured party will sue the stable keeper, owner, lessee, event manager, and any other possibly liable party.

                The more difficult terms about which the parties MUST reach agreement will concern the soundness and maintenance of the show horse.  Historically in the sport horse industry, soundness problems have been the more heavily litigated issues.  Even though the lessee may be required to obtain major medical and even loss of use coverage on a particular animal, in the unfortunate event of a catastrophic or otherwise career ending injury, threats and actual litigation usually follow.  Typically, adverse claims involve allegations that the lessee was grossly negligent in their management of the leased horse.   Some of these claims even involve allegations that a lessee allowed the horse to train on dangerous footing.  Particular care must be taken in drafting these portions of the ELA.  Because this is such an important matter, a lessee should insist that all past lameness, surgeries, treatments, illnesses, or unusual behaviors of the horse be disclosed by the owner/leasor.  In some cases it is advisable for the lessee to obtain the equivalent of a pre-purchase veterinary examination to ensure that no latent defects exist which might create problems for the horse during the lease term.  It may be that the horse is maintained on a regular schedule of hock injections, necessary for his comfort and continued soundness.  Who will pay for this type of maintenance and care during the lease is negotiable, but should not be overlooked. 

                There can be a myriad of factors to consider in making your ELA and enjoying a successful lease arrangement that makes everyone, including the horse, happy!  Many of these factors are dependent upon the age, type, and sex of the subject horse, as well as the nature of the prospective lessee.  Because the law imposes liability for placing someone on an unsuitable mount, these considerations must be at the forefront when deciding to whom you might lease your horse.  You may not want to lease “Lightening,” who is known to bolt unpredictably, to a six year old boy wanting to do trail classes! 

I can attest that leasing a horse is a marvelous way to enhance your riding and horsemanship experience, as well as prolong the careers of many fine animals.  My lease last year of a friend's retired Grand Prix horse enabled me to learn the Prix St. George movements, as well as show at FEI level on last year's Florida Circuit.  Getting the timing for the pirouettes and tempi changes on this confirmed competitior has been invaluable in riding my very sensative Bon Wilbo.  In the sport horse area, horse leasing has been common place for many, many years.  With the right agreements in place, leasing should be mutually beneficial, and sometimes a once in a lifetime experience.

                                                LIBERO AT 23 YEARS YOUNG!!!

Please enjoy watching Libero take care of me in our 2010 Palm Beach Derby ride:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42zy3i2FvuM

---

[1] It should be noted that the new rule will require a separate form to be filed with the AQHA in addition to the ELA.

Mandatory Arbitration Clauses

Today I saw a mandatory arbitration clause in a breeding agreement.  This came from outside Texas, but it goes without saying that business people who are also horse people think it is a great thing to throw these clauses into virtually every type of agreement.  Since most horse business related contracts I can think of would probably not be interpreted as contracts of adhesion, this would be a tough clause to beat.  So why have it??

It is becoming increasingly well known that arbitration can be as, and often is more expensive than traditional litigation.  One reason is many arbitration forums do not favor summary judgment practice which can dispose of many meritless complaints before the parties spend too much money and get very far down the litigation trail.  By in large, if both parties do not cooperate and fully follow arbitration rules - which usually entails voluntary disclosure of witnesses and evidence - the system does not work as intended!

I think people need to think twice before summarily including a mandatory arbitration or mediation provision in an agreement.  There needs to be solid legal and business ($$$) reasons for including such a clause.  Why would you want or disapprove of an arbitration clause in - say - a board, breeding or training agreement??  I'd love to hear more on this debate which has been near and dear to my heart as our State Bar has debated the ethics of lawyers including these clauses in engagement agreements!!

SIMPLIFIED HELMET RULES - COURTESY OF USDF

Here they are - the New Rules in a simple list!!

Protective Headgear Rules for Dressage

Effective March 1, 2011, the following rules apply to Dressage Competitions and Regular Competitions holding Dressage classes:

1. Riders under age 18 must wear protective headgear, as defined by DR120.5 and in compliance with GR801, at all times while mounted on the competition grounds. This includes non-competing riders as well as those competing at any level.
    
2. While on horses competing in national level tests (Fourth Level and below), riders must wear protective headgear as defined by DR120.5 and in compliance with GR801, at all times while mounted on the competition grounds. This includes non-competing riders on horses competing in national level tests.
    
3. While on horses competing in USEF or FEI Young Horse Tests, and FEI Junior Tests, riders must wear protective headgear as defined by DR120.5 and in compliance with GR801, at all times while mounted on the competition grounds.
    
4. All riders competing in Para-Equestrian tests must wear protective headgear at all times while mounted on the competition grounds. Riders who compete in PE tests must wear protective headgear on every horse they ride, no matter the level or test.
    
5. All riders of any age while on non-competing horses must wear protective headgear at all times while mounted on the competition grounds.
    
6. All riders under age 18 and all riders while on horses competing in national level tests, who choose to wear Armed Services or police uniform, must wear protective headgear as defined in DR120.5 and in compliance with GR801 at all times while mounted on the competition grounds. Riders age 18 and over who wear Armed Services or police uniform on horses that are competing only in FEI levels and tests at the Prix St. Georges level and above must wear either protective headgear or the appropriate military/police cap or hat for their branch of service.
    
7. When a horse is competing in both national and FEI levels or tests (e.g. Fourth Level and PSG), the rider must wear protective headgear at all times when mounted on that horse on the competition grounds and during all tests.
    
8. While on horses that are competing only in FEI levels and tests at the Prix St. Georges level and above (including FEI Young Rider Tests, the USEF Developing Prix St. Georges Test and the USEF Brentina Cup Test), riders age 18 and over are not required to wear protective headgear in warm up or during competition. However, these riders may wear protective headgear without penalty from the judge.
    
9. In FEI-recognized (CDI, CDI-Y, CDI-J, CDI-P, etc.) classes, FEI rules take precedence and protective headgear is permitted but not required.
    
10. All riders while on horses competing in national level classes such as Equitation, Materiale and DSHB Under Saddle are required to wear protective headgear at all times when mounted on the competition grounds.
     

Protective headgear is defined as a riding helmet which meets or exceeds ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials)/SEI (Safety Equipment Institute) standards for equestrian use and carries the SEI tag. The headgear and harness must be secured and properly fitted. Any rider violating this rule at any time must immediately be prohibited from further riding until such headgear is properly in place.
Recommendation to competitions:
In order to distinguish riders who are required to wear protective headgear from those who aren't, it is suggested that entry numbers in a different sequence be assigned to the entries in each group (e.g. use numbers from 1-700 for entries where riders must wear protective headgear and use numbers from 800 and above for entries where riders are not required to use protective headgear).
Short summary statement for use in prize lists:
Effective March 1, 2011, for dressage: Anyone mounted on a horse must wear protective headgear except those riders age 18 and over while on horses that are competing only in FEI levels and tests at the Prix St. Georges level and above (including FEI Young Rider Tests, the USEF Developing Prix St. Georges Test and the USEF Brentina Cup Test).

Rule Changes at USEF Require HELMETS - GOOD BY TOP HAT!

Ganci wears a helmet now!!

Hot off the press, please read:

USEF Passes New Safety Helmet Rules for Eventing and Dressage Riders

Posted by admin on January 25, 2011

Release: January 25 2011
Author: USEF Communications Department
Lexington, KY- The Board of Directors during this year’s United States Equestrian Federation (USEF) Annual Meeting approved new helmet rules for riders in both eventing and dressage – just two weeks after dozens of stakeholders in equestrian sport met with the goal of improving rider safety across disciplines.
”If the technology is available to reduce head injuries, the time to use it is now,” said USEF President David O’Connor. “I am very proud of our organization for taking this very important step. It is a huge direction of change.”
Briefly, the first rule change requires anyone on a horse to wear a ASTM/SEI-approved helmet at all times while mounted on competition grounds at U.S. nationally rated eventing competitions. The rule change is effective immediately.
Further specifics regarding the changes to the rule for Protective Headgear for Eventing (EV 114.1) will be posted here in the future:
http://www.usef.org/_IFrames/RuleBook/Changes/2011.aspx.
The United States Eventing Association (USEA) helped shepherd the rule change through the USEF committees during USEF’s Annual Meeting.
“The attention to safety in eventing has led to a 40 percent decrease in rider injuries between 2007 and 2011,” said Malcolm Hook, USEF Eventing Safety Officer and chair of the USEF Eventing Technical Committee. “The Eventing Technical Committee could see no reason to delay implementation of a probably inevitable and statistically justifiable rule change in an effort to continue this encouraging trend.”
The second rule change is effective March 1, 2011, for dressage. It requires anyone mounted on a horse, except those riders age 18 and over, to wear protective headgear while on horses that are competing only in FEI levels and tests at the Prix St. Georges level and above (including FEI Young Rider Tests, the USEF Developing Prix St. Georges Test and the USEF Brentina Cup Test).
Additional details regarding the changes to the rules for Protective Headgear for Dressage (DR120.5) will be posted here in the future:
http://www.usef.org/_IFrames/RuleBook/Changes/2011.aspx.
The USEF Board of Directors approved both the eventing and dressage helmet rule changes on January 23 at the conclusion of USEF’s Annual Meeting.
Sara Ike, USEF managing director of eventing, said that while eventing riders long have been moving toward tougher rules, it wasn’t until early 2010, after Olympic dressage rider Courtney King Dye was seriously injured in a riding accident that the dressage world began to seriously consider stricter helmet use. “Dressage riders called the Courtney King accident their ’9-11,’ ” Ike said.
King Dye, who remained in a coma for a month following her accident, was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident and currently is undergoing rehabilitation.
Earlier this month, a Riders4Helmets Helmet Safety Symposium held in Wellington, FL, was deemed a huge success by participants at the event. Representatives from USEF, USEA, the United States Dressage Foundation, the United States Hunter Jumper Association, Racing, Polo, Helmet Manufacturers, Helmet Testing Authorities, Leading Equestrians and Medical Experts met with the goal of improving rider safety — and left pledging to work together across the disciplines to do just that.

Attorney Fees In Equine Cases

An odd thing happened recently in a horse case.  A plaintiff sought to recover attorney fees for what was only pled as a negligence claim.  The plaintiff's position was that under Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code there is a provision at Section 38.001(6) that allows recovery of attorney fees for "claims for killed or injured stock."  The plaintiff contends her horse was injured while being boarded at a Texas ranch through the negligence of ranch employees.

Because it is very well settled law in Texas that you cannot recover attorney fees for negligence claims, I had not seen an attempt to get fees through this statute.  When I checked the case law, there was no case that even mentioned 38.001(6), and only one interpreting it's predecessor in this context.

In Hatley v. American Quarter Horse Association, 552 F. 2d 646 (5^th Cir. 1977), that court interpreting the predecessor to Section 38.001(6), Art. 2226, held:

Finally, plaintiff's claim for attorney's fees under Article 2226, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. is without merit. . . . we do not believe that Naturally High can be considered as “stock killed or injured” within the meaning of the statute.

Id., at 658.  Because the alleged injury to the horse in the Hatley case, “Naturally High,” was economic in nature, this was in all probability for the Court's finding.  But it caused me to start digging, and here is what I have found:

The only cognizable claim for killed or injured stock in Texas arises under Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat., Article 6402, which provides:

Each railroad company shall be liable to the owner for the value of all stock killed or injured by the locomotives and cars of such railroad company in running over their respective railways. Such liability shall also exist in counties and subdivisions of counties which adopt the stock law prohibiting the running at large of horses, mules, jacks, jennets and cattle. If said company fence its road it shall only be liable for injury resulting from a want of ordinary care.

Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat., Article 6402.  Acts 2009,  81^st Leg., ch. 85, Sec. 5.01(a)(1) repeal this Article effective April 1, 2011, and the claim will now be part of the Texas Transportation Code at  § 122.102, and provides:

(a) Subject to Subsection (b), a railroad company is liable to the owner for the value of all stock killed or injured by the company's locomotives and cars operating over the company's railways, regardless of whether the county or subdivision of a county in which the death or injury occurs has, under Subchapter B or D, Chapter 143, Agriculture Code, prohibited certain animals from running at large.

(b) A railroad company that fences its railway is liable only for injury to stock that results from a want of ordinary care.

Texas Transportation Code § 122.102 (VTSA 2009).

A claim for death or injury to stock in Texas has always been grounded in the laws surrounding the operation of railroads.  A form of Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat., Article 6402 was originally approved on February 8, 1860 as an act supplementary to the 1853 regulatory act.  See General Laws, 8th Legislature, Page 60, Chapter 51, 4 Gammel's Laws of Texas p. 1422.  Section 6 of the 1860 act read as follows:

‘Section 6. That each and every Railroad Company in this State, shall be liable to the owner, for the value of all stock killed or injured, by the locomotives and cars of such Railroad Company in running over their respective Railways, which may be recovered by suit before any Court having jurisdiction of the amount. If the Railroad Company fence in their road, they shall only then be liable in cases of injury resulting from the want of ordinary care.’

            Because questions arose concerning the effect that the adoption of Texas stock laws, prohibiting certain animals from running at large, were having in certain counties or subdivisions through which railway lines might run, the Texas Legislature in 1905, enacted, as an amendment to the stock law, Section 20a, which provided for strict liability of railroad companies for stock killed or injured by their locomotives in counties or subdivisions where the stock law had been adopted, but provided that if the railroad company should fence its road, then it should only be held liable in cases of injury for want of ordinary care.  Section 20a made the provisions of Article 4528, R.C.S. 1895 apply even to areas where the stock law had been adopted. Article 6603, R.C.S. 1911, carried forward the same provisions, combining the provisions of Article 4528 and Section 20a previously enacted, and employed substantially the same wording as is used in Article 6402 in the 1925 revision:

‘Art. 6402. Killing stock. Each railroad company shall be liable to the owner for the value of all stock killed or injured by the locomotives and cars of such railroad company in running over their respective railways. Such liability shall also exist in counties and subdivisions of counties which adopt the stock law prohibiting the running at large of horses, mules, jacks, jennets and cattle. If said company fence its road it shall only be liable for injury resulting from a want of ordinary care.’

            These laws to protect owners of range roaming stock were accompanied by laws regulating presentment of such claims and for recovery of attorney fees.  Article 2178, Rev. Statutes, approved March 13, 1909, read in part as follows:

‘An Act to Regulate the Presentation and Collection of Claims for Personal Services or for Labor Rendered or for Material Furnished, or for Overcharges in Freight or Express, or for Any Claim for Lost or Damaged Freight, or for Stock Killed or Injured by Any Person or Corporation, against Any Person or Corporation Doing Business in This State, and Providing a Reasonable Amount of Attorney Fees to be Recovered, in Cases Where the Amount of Such Claims Shall Not Exceed Two Hundred ($200) Dollars, and Declaring an Emergency. ‘Section 1. That hereafter any person in this state, having a valid, bona fide claim against any person or corporation doing business in this state, for personal services rendered, or for labor done, or for material furnished, or for overcharges on freight or express, or for any claim for lost or damaged freight, or for stock killed or injured by such person or corporation, its agents or employees, may present the same to such person or corporation, or to any duly authorized agent thereof, in any county where suit may be instituted for the same; and if, at the expiration of thirty days after the presentation of such claim, the same has not been paid or satisfied, he may immediately institute suit thereon in the proper court and if he shall finally establish his claim, and obtain judgment for the full amount thereof, as presented for payment to such person or corporation in such court, he shall be entitled to recover the amount of such claim and all costs of suit, and in addition thereto a reasonable amount as attorney fees, provided he has an attorney employed in the case, not to exceed twenty ($20) dollars, to be determined by the court or jury trying the case; provided, however, that nothing in this act shall be construed to repeal or in any manner affect any provision of the law now in force giving a remedy to persons having claims of the character mentioned in this act, but the same shall be considered as cumulative of all other remedies given to such a person or persons.‘ Sec. 2. The fact that there is no law now in force in this state providing an effectual remedy for persons having such claims as are mentioned in this act creates an emergency and an imperative public necessity requiring the suspension of the constitutional rule requiring bills to be read on three several days, and this act shall take effect from and after its passage, and it is so enacted.‘ 

Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat., Article 2178.  Article 2178 became Article 2226, the precursor of Section 38.001 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code.[1]  It appears the law allowing recovery of attorney fees for killed and injured stock came into being separate from the law allowing the underlying claim after federal Constitutional challenges under the Equal Protection Clause struck down Texas laws that targeted railroad companies for strict liability for attorney fees.  See Gulf C. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150, 17 S.Ct. 255, 41 L.Ed. 666, (1897).

All of the above is a rather boring way for me to conclude that attorney fees should only be recoverable in claims brought under the Texas Transportation Code for injured horses and not in general negligence claims. 

This is an interesting issue, dealing with very old law, but with fantastic implications in veterinary negligence cases as well as everyday matters involving the care of another person's horse.

I've asked some of my equine law peers to weigh in on this issue and will hopefully have more to report, failing which, somebody needs to make a trip to Austin!!

---

[1] Under the earlier versions of the statute, before 1977, a party could not recover attorney's fees on a claim for breach of contract unless the contract concerned a listed claim, i.e., personal services rendered, labor done, material furnished, overcharges for freight or express, lost or damaged freight or express, or stock killed or injured and, after the 1953 amendment, suits on sworn accounts. The supreme court limited the suit on sworn accounts provision to suits between persons for the purchase and sale of personal property creating a debtor-creditor relationship. Meaders v. Biskamp, 159 Tex. 79, 82-83, 316 S.W.2d 75, 78 (1958). Claims on “special contracts,” not falling within this definition of sworn account, were not entitled to attorney's fees until the 1977 amendments. See id., 159 Tex. at 83, 316 S.W.2d at 78 (attorney's fees not recoverable under article 2226 for contract to drill oil well); Guay v. Schneider, Bernet & Hickman, Inc., 341 S.W.2d 461, 462 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1960) (attorney's fees not recoverable in suit by stock broker against account holder for amounts owing from margin transaction), writ ref'd n.r.e., 161 Tex. 560, 344 S.W.2d 429 (1961) (per curiam).