Hunter v. Strong

• Citation: 265 S.W. 539
• Decision Date: 05 November 1924
• Docket Number: (No. 7205.)
• Parties: HUNTER et al. v. STRONG.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas

Page 539

265 S.W. 539

HUNTER et al. v. STRONG.

(No. 7205.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

November 5, 1924.

Rehearing Denied December 17, 1924.

Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; Robt. W. B. Terrell, Judge.

Action by Ethel Strong against E. J. Hunter and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and rendered.

Hicks, Hicks, Dickson & Bobbitt and Russell & Woodhull, all of San Antonio, for appellants.

C. W. Trueheart and Ball & Seeligson, all of San Antonio, for appellee.

SMITH, J.

As plaintiff below, appellee alleged that she entered into a verbal contract with appellants, stockbrokers, by which she was employed to sell oil and other stocks on commission.

The case here hinges upon the stipulation in the contract, as it is alleged, that if persons who purchased shares of stock through appellee's solicitation "thereafter purchased additional shares of stock from the defendants, on such additional shares so sold by defendants plaintiff would be entitled to a commission of 15 per cent. on the amounts agreed to be paid by the purchasers of said stock, and such commission would be paid to the plaintiff by the defendants on such future sales, until such contract was terminated."

It was shown that under this contract appellee solicited and secured the patronage of O. G. Hugo, M. J. Bliem, and R. E. Moss, who, through her, purchased certain stocks from appellants, who paid her the agreed commission on such sales; and that subsequently, after they had without cause terminated her employment, appellants themselves or through other agents sold additional shares of stock to Hugo, Bliem, and Moss. This suit was brought by appellee against appellants to recover the stipulated commissions upon these sales which were negotiated by appellants, without the aid of appellee, after the latter's employment had been terminated. The cause was submitted to a jury upon special issues, upon which the trial court rendered judgment for appellee for $6,622.50, which appellants are here contesting.

It is conceded that the contract was made for an indefinite period, and, this being the case, it is well settled that under the law either party had the right to terminate the contract at will, and without cause. Railway v. Scott, 72 Tex. 70, 10 S. W. 99, 13 Am. St. Rep. 758; Railway v. Griffin, 106 Tex. 477, 171 S. W. 703, L. R. A. 1917B, 1108.

It appears from the record that upon their own motion, and without apparent cause, appella...