Berg v. San Antonio St. Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 03 November 1897 |
Citation | 42 S.W. 647 |
Parties | BERG v. SAN ANTONIO ST. RY. CO. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Bexar county; J. L. Camp, Judge.
Action by L. S. Berg against the San Antonio Street-Railway Company. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Wm. Aubrey and Upson, Bergstrom & Newton, for appellant. Houston Bros., for appellee.
This suit was brought by appellant against appellee to recover $9,000 and interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from the 22d day of September, 1892, alleged commissions for effecting the contract of sale of appellee's bonds to N. W. Harris & Co. under the contract shown in our statement of the facts. The appellee, in its answer, admitted the employment of appellant, and the making of the contract, through his agency, with Harris & Co., but averred that Harris & Co. never intended to perform the contract for the purchase of the bonds, and that they made said contract to appellee with the expectation that they would be able to negotiate the bonds at a profit, and with this object in view they delayed taking the bonds, though the appellee at all times insisted that they should do so; that finally, on July 25, 1895, they declined taking the bonds at all. Appellee also alleged that it was always willing and anxious to deliver the bonds under the contract with Harris & Co., and had complied with every objection and requirement on their part as to all formalities necessary for issuance and delivery of the bonds, and would have long since issued and delivered same if Harris & Co. had complied with their part of the contract, and had not repeatedly informed appellee that they were not prepared to receive and pay for the same; that appellee had not been able to compel Harris & Co. to perform their contract to take the bonds; that they were nonresidents, and had no property in this state within the knowledge of appellee, and that it was powerless to enforce the contract with Harris & Co. The appellant, by supplemental petition in reply to the answer, alleged that appellee was not able and never did offer to deliver to Harris & Co., at any time it was bound to do, its legal bonds, but sought to deliver them its illegal bonds, issued in excess of its charter provisions, and which were null and void, and which, on account of said illegality and invalidity, Harris & Co. refused to receive as a compliance by appellee with its said agreement to deliver said bonds. The case was tried before a jury, and a verdict rendered and judgment entered for the appellee, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
The uncontroverted facts are:
(1) The San Antonio Street-Railway Company, by its president, W. H. Weiss, executed to L. S. Berg the following contract in writing:
(2) In pursuance of said contract, appellant, as agent for the appellee, negotiated with N. W. Harris & Co. the following contract in writing: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
W.T. Craft Realty Co. v. Livernash
... ... assume, and his principal impliedly warrants, that the title ... to the property he deals with is free from infirmity. Berg v ... San Antonio S.R. Co., 17 Tex.Civ.App. 291, 42 S.W. 647, 43 ... S.W. 929; Gauthier v. West, 45 Minn. 192, 47 N.W. 656; ... Birmingham Co. v ... ...
-
Hamburger & Dreyling v. Thomas
...91 Tex. 527, 44 S. W. 819, 43 L. R. A. 593; Albritton v. First Nat. Bank, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 614, 86 S. W. 646; Berg v. Street Ry., 17 Tex. Civ. App. 291, 42 S. W. 647, 43 S. W. 929; Stringfellow v. Powers, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 199, 23 S. W. 313; Parker v. Walker, 86 Tenn. 566, 8 S. W. 391. We a......
-
White River Bridge Company v. Hurd
...are valid. The validity of the provisions is a judicial question for determination in a suit to enforce the contract. 153 P. 28; 42 S.W. 647; Abbott on Public 490; 9 C. J. 61. Seller, when buyer declines to take the property, may tender it and sue for the purchase price. 24 R. C. L. 86. 51 ......
-
W. A. Lucas & Co. v. Thompson
...Hamburger v. Thomas, 118 S. W. 774; Albritton v. First National Bank, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 614, 86 S. W. 646; Berg v. San Antonio Street Railway, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 291, 42 S. W. 647, 43 S. W. 929; as well as by the Supreme Court itself in Brackenridge v. Claridge, 91 Tex. 527, 44 S. W. 819, 43......