Kinchen v. Austin
Decision Date | 03 July 1915 |
Docket Number | (No. 8235.) |
Citation | 179 S.W. 924 |
Parties | KINCHEN v. AUSTIN et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Tarrant County; J. W. Swayne, Judge.
Action by S. E. Austin against C. R. Kinchen and J. R. Blakney. Judgment for plaintiff, against defendant Kinchen and he appeals. Reversed and rendered.
Poulter & Johnson, of Ft. Worth, for appellant. Mays & Mays and Lattimore, Cummings, Doyle & Bouldin, all of Ft. Worth, for appellees.
J. R. Blakney and L. R. Whitley executed a contract in writing by the terms of which the former agreed to sell, and the latter agreed to buy, a certain lot in the city of Ft. Worth. Whitley assigned his interest in the contract to A. G. Baldwin, who in turn assigned his interest in it to C. R. Kinchen, and Kinchen assigned all his interest in the contract to S. E. Austin.
The original contract, together with said assignments, is as follows:
S. E. Austin instituted this suit against C. R. Kinchen and J. R. Blakney, alleging that under and by virtue of said contract Blakney contracted and became obligated to execute to plaintiff a warranty deed to the property described, free of all liens and incumbrances whenever as much as one-fourth of the purchase price of $3,250, or $812.50, had been paid to him, Blakney; that $240.50 had been paid to Blakney on said contract, leaving a balance of $572 of said $812.50, which balance, less the sum of $300, the amount of delinquent taxes due on the property, plaintiff had tendered to Blakney in connection with a demand for a deed from Blakney to said property free of all liens or incumbrances thereon, and that said tender and demand had been refused. In his pleadings, plaintiff made the same tender upon the same conditions, and prayed for judgment against Blakney for title to the property free of any lien for the balance of the purchase price which Whitley agreed to pay for the property. Plaintiff further alleged that, in consideration for the assignment of the contract to him, he paid to Kinchen the sum of $250, and conveyed to him another lot in Ft. Worth, known as lot 16, in block 83, on Lincoln avenue. According to further allegations in his petition, plaintiff was induced to make such purchase by certain false and fraudulent representations made to him by Kinchen which were pleaded as follows:
"That as soon as said plaintiff herein shall have paid under said contract the sum of one-fourth (1/4) of the said thirty-two hundred and fifty ($3,250.00) dollars, that the said J. R. Blakney would make, execute and deliver to this plaintiff a general warranty deed to said property free of any and all liens and incumbrances and that all this plaintiff would have to pay for said property would be the said sum of eight hundred twelve and 50/100 ($812.50) dollars to the owner of said contract, to wit, J. R. Blakney, and that said sum of two hundred and fifty ($250.00) dollars so paid by him together with the sum of eight hundred twelve and 50/100 ($812.50) dollars to be paid to the other party to said contract was all that said plaintiff herein would have to pay for said property."
Plaintiff's prayer for judgment was as follows:
"That he have judgment against all of the defendants forever quieting his title to the property in controversy upon payment of the said one-fourth of the $3,200.00 to the said J. R. Blakney; or in case the court should hold that such was not the meaning of the contract between the parties originally, to wit, L. H. Whitley and J. R. Blakney, and that there was fraud, accident or mistake in the statement of the matter to this plaintiff, by the defendant C. R. Kinchen as above alleged, then he prays that the deed made by him to the lot 16 in block 83, of North Ft. Worth, Tarrant county, Texas, situated on Lincoln avenue, be canceled, set aside and for naught held, and that the legal and equitable title to same be declared to be in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Holly Sugar Corporation v. Fritzler
... ... Co., (Ala.) 35 ... So. 33-37; Providence Jewelry Co. v. Bailey, (Mich.) ... 123 N.W. 1117-1118; Williston, 1924 Ed. 2659; Kinchen v ... Austen, (Tex.) 179 S.W. 924-926. Relief cannot be ... granted to one in possession of his faculties, who relied ... upon ... 437; Alexander, et al. v. Ferguson, (N. J.) 63 A ... 998; Walter Pratt & Co. v. Metzger, (Ark.) 95 S.W ... 451-452; Austin v. Brooklyn Co., (Mo.) 285 S.W ... 1015-1017; Gardner v. Johnson, et al., (Mich.) 210 ... N.W. 295; Baird v. Pub. Nat. Service Bureau, (N. D.) ... ...
-
Dial Temp Air Conditioning Co. v. Faulhaber, 15669
...have known that he was not liable on the lease. Texas & N. O. Ry. Co. v. Hawkins, Tex.Civ.App., 112 S.W.2d 1107; Kinchen v. Austin, et al., Tex.Civ.App., 179 S.W. 924, 926. Braecklein testified that in his discussion with the landlord he had been informed that the landlord had other uses fo......
-
Abilene Nat. Bank v. Fina Supply, Inc.
...itself actionable fraud." 35 Cor.Jur. 1162, sec. 433, Note 26; 51 C.J.S., Landlord and Tenant, sec. 223. * * * * * * In Kinchen v. Austin, Tex.Civ.App., 179 S.W. 924, it was held that where a party told his assignee the legal effect of the assignment, that constituted an expression of opini......
-
Mann v. Rugel, 14173
...to his lessor demised the premises for use as a bakery only * * *.' See also 51 C.J.S., Landlord and Tenant, § 48. In Kinchen v. Austin, Tex.Civ.App., 179 S.W. 924, it was held that where a party told his assignee the legal effect of the assignment, that constituted an expression of opinion......