Adams v. Brown
| Decision Date | 30 January 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 2379.,2379. |
| Parties | ADAMS v. BROWN. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Terrell County; Joseph Jones, Judge.
Suit by O. W. Adams against Ben H. Brown. Judgment of dismissal, and plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Sutton & Montague and Upton & Upton, all of San Angelo, and Brian Montague, of Del Rio, for appellant.
Alfred E. Creigh, of Sanderson, and Jones & Lyles, of Del Rio, for appellee.
Appellee Brown and W. B. Robertson executed a contract which reads:
This suit was brought by O. W. Adams against Brown to recover a commission of 5 per cent. for services, rendered in effecting the executory contract of sale evidenced by such contract. A copy of the contract was attached to and made a part of the petition.
The petition set up that the land was listed by defendant with plaintiff for sale at $7.50; that plaintiff procured a prospective purchaser, W. B. Robertson, and showed him the lands, whereupon Brown and Robertson entered into the contract set forth above, "and by the execution of said written contract, the said defendant accepted as satisfactory to him the said purchaser, W. B. Robertson. * * *" Other allegations show that Brown subsequently released Robertson from the contract, returned to him the $500 theretofore paid, and that Brown later sold the land to G. B. Hill.
General and special exceptions to the petition were sustained and the suit dismissed.
Plaintiff's cause of action is predicated upon the rule which recognizes that a land agent employed to sell has earned his commission when he procures a purchaser able to buy, and by enforceable contract has bound himself so to do. Moss & Raley v. Wren, 102 Tex. 567, 113 S. W. 739, 120 S. W. 847; Stolaroff v. Campbell (Tex. Civ. App.) 18 S.W.(2d) 838; Wolfman & Katz v. Callahan (Tex. Civ. App.) 204 S. W. 777.
By the execution of the contract defendant accepted Robertson as satisfactory to him, and he could not thereafter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peters v. Coleman
...to buy cannot be questioned. Frances v. Foster, 113 Tex. 521, 260 S.W. 1023; Jones v. Parker, Tex.Civ.App., 26 S.W.2d 742; Adams v. Brown, Tex.Civ.App., 25 S.W.2d 879; Wolfman & Katz v. Callahan, Tex.Civ.App., 204 S.W. 777; Seidel v. Walker, Tex.Civ.App., 173 S.W. 1170, writ dismissed, and ......
-
Del Andersen and Associates v. Jones, 4846
...to buy cannot be questioned. Frances v. Foster, 113 Tex. 521, 260 S.W. 1023; Jones v. Parker, Tex.Civ.App., 26 S.W.2d 742; Adams v. Brown, Tex.Civ.App., 25 S.W.2d 879; Wolfman & Katz v. Callahan, Tex.Civ.App., 204 S.W. 777; Seidel v. Walker, Tex.Civ.App., 173 S.W. 1170, writ dismissed, and ......
-
Hart v. Ehlers
...becoming bound thereby that it expressly obligates him to buy and pay therefor. His agreement to do so is clearly implied. Adams v. Brown, Tex.Civ.App., 25 S.W.2d 879; Howell v. Rosser, Tex.Civ.App., 32 S.W.2d 380. A like implication applies to the seller where the purchaser agrees to purch......
-
Hollums v. Hancock, 5629.
...and the contract had been in the exact terms originally authorized by appellee. Graves v. Baines, 78 Tex. 92, 14 S.W. 256; Adams v. Brown, Tex.Civ.App., 25 S.W.2d 879. We are of the opinion that the evidence is sufficient to raise the fact issues thus involved. Appellant testified that appe......