DocketNumber: No. 8222.
Citation Numbers: 178 S.W. 618, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 779
Judges: Conner
Filed Date: 6/12/1915
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
The appellee instituted this suit to recover commissions in the sum of $277.77, alleged to have been earned by him for procuring a purchaser of appellant's land. Appellee alleged, in substance, that appellant had listed his firm, consisting of 171 acres in Erath county, and agreed in writing that, if he should procure a purchaser, he (appellant) would pay to him, appellee, as commissions the said sum of $277.77. Appellee further alleged that a purchaser had been procured.
The appellant in answer to the petition pleaded, in substance, that the land for which the appellee was to negotiate a sale was the homestead of himself and wife and their community property, and that at the time the contract mentioned was made it was executed and delivered with the specific understanding that it should not become operative, valid, or binding as against appellant unless his wife should consent to and approve the contract; that it was not agreed that commissions were to be paid or received, or a remuneration of any kind given for services rendered in an effort to procure a sale, unless said sale was consummated on the approval of appellant's wife. It was further alleged that, without fault on the part of appellant, his wife refused to concur in the contract or agree to a contract of sale that had been procured by the appellee.
Appellee presented both general and special exceptions to the several clauses of defendant's answer setting up the special defense above indicated, all of which were sustained, and after the introduction of the evidence the court gave a peremptory instruction in appellee's favor,
There is no statement of facts, and the only question presented goes to the sufficiency of the special answer set up by the appellant. Appellee urges, in answer to appellant's assignment attacking the court's ruling upon the demurrers, that:
"A contract which is clear and complete and is upon its face absolute and executed and delivered cannot be varied by parol evidence showing that it was not to be binding except upon the happening of some event or contingency."
And that:
"A contract cannot be varied by parol evidence showing that the same was not to be binding except upon a condition subsequent."
It seems evident that the court below entertained the view of the law expressed in the above quotations, but in this we think the court erred. The rule invoked is held to apply in this state to deeds to land, or deeds of trust affecting lands, where the delivery of the instrument was made to a grantee, but not to cases of the execution and delivery of ordinary written instruments such as presented in the appellee's petition. See Holt v. Gordon,
Appellee has objected to our consideration of the question on the ground that the record discloses no objection to the peremptory instruction of the court, citing the cases of Railway Co. v. Wheat,
It is ordered that the judgment of the court be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in harmony with this opinion. *Page 620
Meeks v. Holmes Commerce Co. , 1913 Tex. App. LEXIS 270 ( 1913 )
Williams v. Walter A. Wood Mowing & Reaping MacHine Co. , 1913 Tex. App. LEXIS 271 ( 1913 )
Stephenville, N. & S. T. Ry. Co. v. Wheat , 1914 Tex. App. LEXIS 1426 ( 1914 )
King v. Gray , 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 410 ( 1915 )
Burke v. Dulaney , 14 S. Ct. 816 ( 1894 )
Holt v. Gordon , 107 Tex. 137 ( 1915 )
Miller v. Murphy , 1918 Tex. App. LEXIS 1195 ( 1918 )
Denman v. Hall , 144 Tex. 633 ( 1946 )
Parker v. Outhier , 146 Tex. 595 ( 1948 )
Carnell v. Kinser , 1946 Tex. App. LEXIS 563 ( 1946 )
Moore v. Wilson , 1940 Tex. App. LEXIS 192 ( 1940 )
Taggart v. Crews , 1976 Tex. App. LEXIS 3297 ( 1976 )
Juliani v. Fitz-Gibbon , 1950 Tex. App. LEXIS 1723 ( 1950 )