Golden v. Halliday

• Decision Date: 30 September 1960
• Docket Number: No. 15674,15674
• Parties: George GOLDEN, Appellant, v. C. W. HALLIDAY et al., Appellees.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 715

339 S.W.2d 715

George GOLDEN, Appellant, v. C. W. HALLIDAY et al., Appellees.

No. 15674.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Dallas.

Sept. 30, 1960.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 28, 1960.

Clarence Bentley, Dallas, for appellant.

Fair & Wuntch, Dallas, for appellees.

YOUNG, Justice.

The suit against appellant was for debt in nature of a claimed real estate commission plus attorney's fees, following a listing of his property for sale. On trial to a jury on special issues, judgment was rendered against defendant for $2,000 together with $500 attorney's fee, from which appeal is taken.

Material facts at issue between the parties are reflected in the jury questions and answers, now summarized:

(1) That on or about July 6, 1958 George Golden agreed to sell and Thomas Courtney agreed to buy the property at 10007 Holloway Street, Dallas, for $40,000; (2) that at time of said agreement, Golden had the property at 10007 Holloway listed for sale with Ebby Halliday Real Estate Agency; (3) that Golden agreed to allow Courtney until July 21, 1958 to consummate or close any proposed purchase of said property; (4) that on or before July 21, 1958, Courtney was ready, willing, and able to consummate or close the purchase of this property; (5) that Golden did not receive notice of the fact that Courtney was ready, willing, an able to purchase the 10007 Holloway Street property; (6) that the Ebby Halliday Agency or the Fred Peek Agency were the procuring cause of the proposed sale of property from Golden to Courtney; (7) that reasonable compensation at Dallas, Texas in July 1958 for the services performed by plaintiffs for defendant Golden was $2,000; (8) reasonable attorney's fee to David Wuntch for legal services in representing plaintiffs in the case was $500; (9) that on or about July 6, 1958 and before obtaining defendant Goden's signature on the proposed sales contract, plaintiff Ebby Halliday represented to Golden that the value of the property at 10007 Holloway Street would be greatly reduced within a short time by the widening of Walnut Hill Lane; (10) which representation was not false; (11) or made as a statement of fact; (12) but was made with intent to induce Golden to sign the sales contract in question; (13) Golden did not believe or rely on Ebby Halliday's representation referred in issue nine; (14) and would have singed the sale contract regardless of said representation; (15) that after the contract of sale was submitted on Sunday to defendant Golden he did initial or agree to changes to be make in the original form of such contract; (16) that befre Courtney obtained a commitment for a $27,500 loan at 5 1/2%, Golden advised Courtney that he, Golden, would not go through with the sale in question; (17) that before Courtney had closed the sale of his Missouri property, defendant, Golden advised Courtney that he, Golden, would not go through with the deal.

The only exception taken to the court's charge was 'for the reason that the wording of such issue (special issue No. 1.) results in the jury having to make a legal determination of the meaning of the words 'agreed to sell,' and it is not a fact issue but a mixed issue of fact and law.'

Material to the claim of appellees were the following exhibits in evidence: (1) a 60-day 'uniform listing contract, dated April 15, 1958, signed by the parties, describing the subject property, owner agreeing to sell at a price of $45,000, or any sum the owner may accept;' providing that if 'broker procures a purchaser, owner agrees to pay broker at Dallas, Texas, a commission of 5% of the selling price' in event of a sale during the contract period; (2) a renewal memorandum of date June 15, 1958 extendign the listing of property for another 60 days; (3) a sales contract, dated July 6, 1958 signed by plaintiff broker and owner Golden, also by Thomas Courtney,...