Hoechten v. Standard Home Co.

• Decision Date: 21 May 1913
• Citation: 157 S.W. 1191
• Parties: HOECHTEN v. STANDARD HOME CO.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

157 S.W. 1191

HOECHTEN v. STANDARD HOME CO.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

May 21, 1913.

Rehearing Denied June 18, 1913.

Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; Claude V. Birkhead, Judge.

Action by Fred Hoechten against the Standard Home Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Douglas Cater, of San Antonio, for appellant. Israel Dreeben, of Dallas, and Carlos Bee, of San Antonio, for appellee.

FLY, C. J.

Appellant sued on an oral contract entered into between him and an agent of appellee whereby, in consideration of certain payments each month for six months, he was to have the right to borrow $5,000 from appellee, that the agent was informed by appellant that he owed money on certain property in San Antonio which would become due and payable in six months, that he desired to borrow money to pay off the indebtedness, and further alleged: "That the plaintiff herein then informed said agents that he owed money on a certain property in the city of San Antonio, Tex., and that the indebtedness due on such property would become due and payable in about six months and that he, plaintiff herein, would have to be able to pay such indebtedness when it became due, or in the meantime make an effort to sell other property that he had to satisfy such indebtedness, or to make a loan on such property to take up the indebtedness then existing against it. That the property upon which he owed money is and was located at No. 227 Florida street in the city of San Antonio, Bexar county, Tex. This plaintiff further informed the said agents of defendant: That his only reason and object in buying the contract from this defendant company was for the purpose of securing money to extend the loan when it became due on such property located at No. 227 Florida street, and that if he did buy such contracts that he would depend upon the defendant company to make a loan to him within the time as represented by said agents, and, in the event such money was not loaned to him by the defendant company at the expiration of six months, that he would have to sell other property he owned for what he could get for it so as to take up such loan, or money due on said property at No. 227 Florida street. That thereupon said agents of the defendant herein informed this plaintiff that the object of the company that they represented was to provide for just such conditions as he (the plaintiff) was then in, and assured him that he need...