Green v. Gibson

• Decision Date: 02 February 1892
• Citation: 18 S.W. 494
• Parties: GREEN v. GIBSON.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

18 S.W. 494

GREEN v. GIBSON.

Supreme Court of Texas.

February 2, 1892.

Commissioners' decision. Section B. Appeal from district court, Dallas county.

Suit by A. Green against Robert Gibson to recover for a breach of a contract of lease. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Dudley G. Wooten, for appellant. Richard Morgan, for appellee.

GARRETT, P. J.

Green brought this suit against the appellee, Robert Gibson, to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract to lease certain premises in the city of Dallas to the appellant for the term of 12 months from May 1, 1888. The lease was in writing, and contained the provision: "Should the lessor desire to build on the above premises prior to the expiration of the lease, it is agreed that sixty days' notice in writing to said lessee shall terminate said lease." On June 21, 1888, the lessor, by his agents, Murphy & Bolanz, gave notice to Green that he desired to build on the property, and of the termination of the lease at the end of 60 days. Green surrendered possession of the rented premises within 15 days, but Gibson did not build thereon. Suit was filed May 6, 1889; and the contention of plaintiff was that the notice to quit "was not made in good faith, nor with any intention on the part of the defendant to build on said premises within the term of said lease, but that the same was a clandestine ruse and fraudulent pretext for compelling plaintiff to surrender his lease, and to remove from said building, before he was legally entitled to be removed therefrom." The defense was a general denial. The case was tried by the court without a jury, and judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant, from which this appeal has been taken At the request of the plaintiff the judge who tried the case filed his conclusions of fact and of law, from the eighth paragraph of which it appears that "the plaintiff sustained damages by reason of his removal from the building;" but the court found that "at the time the defendant gave plaintiff notice to vacate, as aforesaid, the North Texas National Bank was preparing to tear down their said building for the purpose of erecting in its stead a new building, and the defendant contemplated tearing down his building, and erecting in its stead a new building, similar in design and appearance to the new bank building; that the new bank building was built as contemplated, but the defendant subsequently abandoned the idea of erecting the new building, as he...