Hood v. Campbell
| Decision Date | 30 November 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 7866.) |
| Citation | 2 S.W.2d 925 |
| Parties | HOOD v. CAMPBELL et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Cameron County; A. M. Kent, Judge.
Action by W. H. Campbell and others against A. J. Hood. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed and rendered.
Spears & Montgomery, of San Benito, and H. L. Yates, of Brownsville, for appellant.
Seabury, George & Taylor, of Brownsville, for appellees.
Appellees sued appellant for commissions for services rendered in the sale of approximately 2,500 acres of land that appellant listed with appellees, under an agreement that he would take $45 per acre for said land and would pay $2.50 per acre as commissions for finding a purchaser. In pursuance thereof appellees procured James-Dickinson Farm Mortgage Company, a private corporation, of Brownsville, which was ready, willing, and able to purchase said land at the stipulated price. Whereupon the James-Dickinson Farm Mortgage Company entered into a written contract for the purchase of the land upon terms satisfactory to appellant, binding the said appellant to sell said land to said corporation. As a part of the consideration thereof $1,500 was to be paid in cash, and $10,000 was to be paid in first vendor's lien notes which the corporation owned against land in the Rio Grande Valley, aggregating some $50,000; which $10,000 vendor's lien notes were to be selected by appellant from said $50,000 of said vendor's lien notes.
At the time of making said contract appellant agreed to pay appellees, as their commission, $6,500 of the $10,000 worth of vendor's lien notes, permitting appellees to select that amount from the $10,000 of vendor's lien notes from said corporation; appellees agreeing if they were permitted to select the $6,500 of notes they would take the same in lieu of the $2.50 per acre commission, as originally agreed upon.
It is alleged that appellant thereafter breached the contract and refuses and continues to refuse to carry out the same or to pay appellees their commission of $2.50 per acre, as originally agreed upon for the sale of the 2,500 acres of land, or to pay the reasonable market value of the $6,500 of vendor's lien notes, which the appellees would have selected had the same been tendered to them by appellant.
Appellant filed a general demurrer, and, among other special exceptions, alleged that James-Dickinson Farm Mortgage Company was a private corporation and not permitted to acquire appellant's land; that it was forbidden by the statutes of Texas to own appellant's land.
The case was tried by the court without a jury. At the conclusion of the testimony, the undisputed evidence showing 90 cents on the dollar to be the least valuation placed on the $6,500 vendor's lien notes, amounting to $5,850, the court instructed the jury to return a verdict in favor of appellees for that amount, with interest from May 1, 1925, and the judgment of the court was rendered in accordance therewith.
Laying out of sight the technical objections to the sufficiency of pleading and other matter, at the present time, the real defense of appellant on the merits of the case was to the effect that James-Dickinson Farm Mortgage Company, being a private corporation, was under the law without power to purchase the land from appellant and acquire the title thereto, and therefore the written contract made and entered into by appellant and said corporation was not binding upon appellant and for that reason the commission contract was unenforceable.
Of course, in view of the well-settled law that it is fundamental error to instruct a verdict where there is any evidence to support it, the assignment of errors is unnecessary, still it is the better practice to assign such errors.
A conveyance of land in Texas to a corporation is not void, but only voidable, which sale cannot be questioned by a purchaser seeking to acquire the land. Such corporation is forbidden to acquire land generally as a business, but not to sell its lands. It may acquire land in due course of business to secure payment of debts, or when the land purchased is necessary to enable it to do business in this state, or when the land does not extend more than two miles beyond the limits of an incorporated city or town, and is to be a subdivision of such city or town. So it cannot be said the purchase of any land is per se void. It may be shown to be void by the sovereign power, but it cannot be shown so by a proposed private person, who seeks in a collateral proceeding to avoid the payment of the broker's commission on the ground that the land sought to be acquired belonged to a private corporation that had acquired it in excess of its right to hold it.
We do not think the contract between the parties, the one to sell and the other to acquire, is void to the extent of invalidating the broker's right to his commission based upon such a sale. Appellant is in no position to plead its invalidity thereby to escape his obligation. This is a function of government, and none but the sovereign, or perhaps some one interested in the corporation, may call it in question. The defense is attempting here collaterally to destroy its own contract which was based upon an entirely valid consideration for independent services. Appellant has no interest in the corporation, and the state has not by any direct proceeding attempted to challenge any of the holdings of land possessed by James-Dickinson Farm Mortgage Company. While the state would be interested in preventing the use of a private corporation for acquiring lands and doing a land business under its charter, we can see no fact presented in this case to justify appellant's plea for forfeiture. Fritt v. Palmer, 132 U. S. 282, 10 S. Ct. 93, 33 L. Ed. 317; Nat. Bank v. Matthews, 98 U. S. 621, 25 L. Ed. 188; Russell v. Texas & P. R. Co., 68 Tex. 646, 5 S. W. 686; Scott v. Farmers' Bank, 97 Tex. 31, 75 S. W. 7, 104 Am. St. Rep. 835; Schneider v. Sellers, 98 Tex. 380, 84 S. W. 417; Schwab Clothing Co. v. Claunch (Tex. Civ. App.) 29 S. W. 922; Wooten v. Dermott Town Site Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 178 S. W. 598; Buchanan v. Houston & T. C. Railway Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 180 S. W. 625; Westbrook v. Mo. Tex. Land Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 195 S. W. 1154; Frost v. Thomas (Tex. Civ. App.) 238 S. W. 305; Staacke v. Routledge, 111 Tex. 489, 241 S. W. 994; Gando Land Co. v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.) 290 S. W. 924.
Appellant entered into the written contract with the corporation for the purchase of the land, and likewise entered into the independent contract with appellees to pay the stipulated commissions for bringing the parties together. It was no fault of appellees that the contract was not consummated. The state was not moving in the matter and the corporation would have secured title. Appellant, under the facts of this case, is estopped to dispute the power of the corporation to purchase said lands. It was of no concern of his that the corporation would subject itself to the penalties of the law in such cases.
We have no case here where the corporation itself is seeking to enforce an alleged invalid executory contract where the proof affirmatively showed the property was not for the purpose of collecting a debt or for the purposes of the corporation, but a collateral proceeding attacking the validity of the contract solely between the corporation and a third party who will not be heard in this collateral proceeding to attack the same, in so far as it affects the rights of a third party.
So it is made very clear by the undisputed testimony, and so found by the court, that appellees found and procured a purchaser for appellant's land, who was accepted by appellant, who entered into a written contract with appellant to purchase said land upon satisfactory terms agreed upon by appellant and the purchaser. This estops appellant from denying the purchaser's ability or willingness to complete the contract. 4 R. C. L. § 49. Suppose the contract is of questionable validity so far as the corporation is concerned, still appellees earned their commission agreed upon with the appellant and are entitled to recover it. Warmack v. Perkins, 132 Ark. 378, 201 S. W. 120; Kolp v. Brazer (Tex. Civ. App.) 161 S. W. 899; Brady v. Richey (Tex. Civ. App.) 187 S. W. 508; South Dakota-Tex. Oil Co. v. Hackworth (Tex. Civ. App.) 248 S. W. 813; Conkling v. Krakauer, 70 Tex. 739, 11 S. W. 117; 4 R. C. L. § 49, p. 309; Leuschner v. Patrick (Tex. Civ. App.) 103 S. W. 664; Watkins Land Co. v. Thetford, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 536, 96 S. W. 72; Handley v. Shaffer, 177 Ala. 636, 59 So. 286; 9 C. J. 596; Hamburger v. Thomas, 103 Tex. 285, 126 S. W. 561.
The corporation always asserted its willingness to carry out the contract. Where the principal accepts the broker's customer and enters into a contract with him, the question of the customer's ability, readiness, and willingness is no longer open to question in a controversy between the broker and the principal for the commission. This general rule has been recognized and followed in Texas in the following cases: Albritton v. First Nat. Bank, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 614, 86 S. W. 646; Kolp v. Brazer (Tex. Civ. App.) 161 S. W. 899; Wolfman v. Callahan (Tex. Civ. App.) 204 S. W. 777; Waurika Oil Ass'n v. Ellis (Tex. Civ. App.) 232 S. W. 364; Keener v. Cleveland (Tex. Com. App.) 250 S. W. 151.
The obligation of appellant to pay to appellees $6,250 in cash for finding him a purchaser for his property on terms satisfactory to himself has never been substituted or set aside or novated, because the same was only to be novated and substituted by the appellant by the delivery by appellant to appellees of the $6,500 vendor's lien notes. These notes, with an additional $3,500 vendor's lien notes, were to be selected by appellant from $50,000 worth of notes held by the corporation. Appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial