Hlawiczka v. Fitch
Decision Date | 17 October 1946 |
Docket Number | No. 11808.,11808. |
Parties | HLAWICZKA v. FITCH et ux. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Galveston County; J. G. Howard, Judge.
Suit by E. H. Fitch and wife against Paul Hlawiczka for specific performance of a sales contract. From an adverse judgment, defendant appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
A. L. Pierson, of Texas City, for appellant.
Magee & Gernsbacher, of Galveston, for appellee.
Suit by E. H. Fitch and wife, Lorean Fitch, filed February 13, 1945, against Paul Hlawiczka, for specific performance of sales contract drawn by real estate broker, Harry E. Dorsett. Parties to contract are Paul Hlawiczka, Harry E. Dorsett, and E. H. Fitch and wife, Lorean Fitch. Contract named Hlawiczka as seller, and Fitch and wife as purchasers, and provided that seller pay 5% commission to agent, Harry E. Dorsett. The real estate broker signed the contract as follows: "Paul Hlawiczka by Harry E. Dorsett, Agent for Seller". Paul Hlawiczka, the defendant, did not sign the contract.
Plaintiffs alleged in their petition that Harry E. Dorsett signed such contract as the duly authorized agent of defendant, and that it was later orally ratified, affirmed, and approved by him.
Defendant answered by special exceptions, general denial, and pleaded the statute of frauds as a special exception, and also as a defense. Such answer was sworn to by defendant.
In a trial before the court without the aid of a jury, the court, on the 11th day of April, 1946, rendered judgment adverse to defendant. The trial court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its judgment.
While appellant states some six points of claimed error for reversal on appeal, the controlling ones of them are those that embody his contention that the statute of frauds, R.S.Article 3995, barred any recovery against him by the appellees, because the contract they declared upon had not been executed directly by himself, but by his claimed agent, the real estate broker, Harry E. Dorsett, who drew the instrument and signed the same as having been executed by appellant, seller, by Harry E. Dorsett, agent of seller.
His position is, flatly, that such agent had no authority under that statute, which he supports by citation of such authorities as these: R.S. Article 3995; Walker v. Keeling, Tex.Civ.App., 160 S.W.2d 310, 311, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4; I Meachem on Agency, Sec. 180; Hooks v. Bridgewater, 111 Tex. 122, 229 S.W. 1114, 15 A. L.R. 216; 27 C.J., page 293, § 365; see also 37 C.J.S., Frauds, Statute of, § 210; Goen v. Hamilton, Tex.Civ.App., 159 S.W. 2d 231; Texas Bar Journal of March 1946, page 89, 1st column; Sorsby v. Thom, Tex. Civ.App., 168 S.W.2d 873, and cited cases.
Appellant's points, and especially those interposing the statute of frauds he so pled in bar of appellees' suit, are overruled, upon the finding and conclusion that such statute had no application to, hence did not rule the facts of, this case, and that the trial court's judgment so holding, and its findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting the same were not only fully supported in the evidence, but were correct as a matter of law.
No extended discussion is deemed necessary, since the trial court's findings Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, and its conclusion of law No. 1 thereon, thus settle the appellant's contentions against him. They were as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hoover v. Wukasch
...S.W. 465, on rehearing, 25 S.W. 818 (writ dism.); Burris v. Hastert, Tex.Civ.App., 191 S.W.2d 811, 814 (writ refused); Hlawiczka v. Fitch, Tex.Civ.App., 197 S.W.2d 135 (writ ref. As authority for his position that the instrument would not be enforceable as a contract to lease, the defendant......
-
Adams v. Abbott
...an agent to bind his principal in an executory contract for a sale or purchase of lands. Fisher v. Bowser. 41 Tex. 222; Hlawiczka v. Fitch, Tex.Civ.App., 197 S.W.2d 135, error refused, n. r. e.; Godfrey v. Central State Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 5 S.W.2d 529, reversed on other grounds, Tex.Com.Ap......
-
Rochelle v. Gibler
...Payne, Tec.Civ.App., 164 S.W. 886; Marlin v. Kosmyroski, Tex.Civ.App., 27 S.W. 1042; Huffman v. Cartwright, 44 Tex. 296; Hlawiczka v. Fitch, Tex.Civ.App., 197 S.W.2d 135. Appellee then insists that since he did not sign the purported contract of sale it was not binding on him. A valid memor......