Brincefield v. Allen

• Decision Date: 07 February 1901
• Citation: Brincefield v. Allen, 60 S.W. 1010, 1 Tex. Ct. Rep. 701 (Tex. App. 1901)
• Parties: BRINCEFIELD v. ALLEN.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

60 S.W. 1010

BRINCEFIELD v. ALLEN.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

February 7, 1901.

Appeal from Calhoun county court; M. S. Mahon, Judge.

Action by F. G. Brincefield against R. L. Allen. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

J. W. S. Holman, for appellant. Willett Wilson, for appellee.

PLEASANTS, J.

Appellant brought this suit to recover of appellee damages for the alleged breach of the following contract: "Calhoun County, State of Texas. Know all men by these presents that R. L. Allen and F. G. Brincefield have this day entered into the following contract: R. L. Allen is to furnish his team and feed for same, his farm situated about one mile from Port Lavaca, working implements and seed, and pay house rent for F. G. Brincefield of $8.00 per month. F. G. Brincefield is to farm and cultivate said land and attend to place, raising truck in a farmlike manner. R. L. Allen is to further furnish boxes, crates, nails, and such stuff, for shipments of produce raised. Said R. L. Allen and Brincefield are to divide equally the returns from said place. At the end of four months, or before or after, R. L. Allen has the privilege of putting up a two-room addition to present house on said place for F. G. Brincefield to live in, and thereby stop the payment of $8.00 per month rent. R. L. Allen. F. G. Brincefield. Port Lavaca, Texas, Jan'y 24th." The petition sets out the contract in full, alleges its execution by the appellee, and the consequent liability, and promise of appellee to comply with the terms of said contract. It is further alleged in said petition that the lease of said farm under said contract was for a term of one year; that the contract of lease of said farm was more valuable for the later half of the term of said lease than for the first half, because the fall and winter crop raised on said farm was much more valuable than the spring and summer crop; that upon the execution of said contract the plaintiff took possession of said farm, and cultivated same in accordance with the terms of said contract until on or about the 16th day of July, 1900, when defendant, in violation of the terms of said contract, failed and refused to pay the $8 per month rent for the house occupied by plaintiff, and failed and refused to build for plaintiff's use the two-room addition to the house on said farm, as stipulated in said contract, and failed and refused to allow plaintiff to longer cultivate said farm, and in violation of said contract dispossessed plaintiff of the use and enjoyment of said land, and refused to further comply with any of the terms of said contract. The damages prayed for in the petition were $50 for the rent of the house occupied by plaintiff for the unexpired term of said lease, and $500, the value of plaintiff's one-half of the crop which would have been raised on said farm during the unexpired term of said lease. The defendant in the court below filed a general demurrer and several special exceptions to plaintiff's petition, all of which were sustained by the court; and, plaintiff declining to amend, his suit was dismissed, and a judgment for costs rendered against him, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

We think none of the exceptions to the petition should have been sustained. The petition sets up a good cause of action against the defendant, and contains a prayer for general relief; and if it be conceded, for the sake of argument, that the damages claimed by the plaintiff are speculative, uncertain, and too remote to be allowed, still the general demurrer to the petition should have been overruled, and plaintiff, under his prayer for general relief, would, upon proof of the breach of the contract as alleged in the petition, have been entitled to recover against the defendant nominal damages and the costs of the suit. Williams v. Warnell, 28 Tex. 610; Edgar v. Galveston City Co., 46 Tex. 421; 1 Suth. Dam. pp. 13, 14.

It has been generally held, and the doctrine seems to be supported by the great weight of authority in...