A.L.G. Enterprises, Inc. v. Huffman
| Decision Date | 11 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. C-2665,C-2665 |
| Citation | 672 S.W.2d 230 |
| Parties | A.L.G. ENTERPRISES, INC. and W. Scott Berry, Petitioners, v. Robert W. HUFFMAN and Maxine Huffman, Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
True & McLain, Roy J. True and Jerry T. Steed, Dallas, for petitioners.
R. Jack Ayres, Jr., P.C., and Kenneth F. Nye, Dallas, for respondents.
This is a suit seeking to enjoin the foreclosure sale of certain real property owned by the Huffmans and to rescind the sale of a liquor store from A.L.G. to the Huffmans. The Huffmans claimed fraud and misrepresentation as grounds for rescission or, alternatively, that there was a mutual mistake between the parties as to the current financial condition of the liquor store which warranted rescission of the sales agreement. A.L.G. counterclaimed, seeking recovery of all money owed on the promissory note, attorneys' fees, interest, and judicial foreclosure of the Huffmans' real property which secured the promissory note. The jury found no fraud or misrepresentation but did find there had been a mutual mistake between the parties as to the current financial condition of the liquor store at the time of the sale. The trial court rendered judgment that A.L.G. recover nothing from the Huffmans and rescinded the contract of sale for the liquor store. The court of appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for a new trial because the evidence was insufficient to show that the Huffmans and A.L.G. were mistaken as to the same material fact. 660 S.W.2d 603.
A.L.G. contends that a general remand of the entire case is contrary to Rule 434, Tex.R.Civ.P., which provides that "if it appear[s] to the court that the error affects a part only of the matter in controversy and that such part is clearly separable without unfairness to the parties, the judgment shall only be reversed and a new trial ordered as to that part affected by such error, ..." We agree with A.L.G. that a general remand by the court of appeals is contrary to Rule 434.
None of the parties complained of the jury findings that A.L.G. did not act fraudulently and did not knowingly or recklessly misrepresent a material fact to the Huffmans. The only points of error before the court of appeals were those dealing with the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence on the mutual mistake issue. The Huffmans presented no cross-points to the court of appeals concerning the fraud findings.
We hold the mutual mistake issues are clearly separable from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Glash
...avoided. See, e.g., ALG Enterprises v. Huffman, 660 S.W.2d 603, 606 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1983), aff'd as reformed per curiam, 672 S.W.2d 230 (Tex.1984). The parol evidence rule does not bar extrinsic proof of mutual mistake. Santos v. Mid-Continent Refrigerator Co., 471 S.W.2d 568, 569......
-
Perry v. Stewart Title Co.
...678; see also A.L.G. Enterprises, Inc. v. Huffman, 660 S.W.2d 603, 606 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1983), aff'd in relevant part, 672 S.W.2d 230 (Tex.1984). A mutual mistake is material if it involves the substance or subject matter of the contract and is not related merely to a collatera......
-
Lacy v. Ticor Title Ins. Co.
...the same material fact. A.L.G. Enterprises v. Huffman, 660 S.W.2d 603, 606 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1983), affirmed as modified, 672 S.W.2d 230 (Tex.1984); Newson v. Starkey, 541 S.W.2d 468, 472 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1976, writ ref'd We state the principles we must follow in determining no......
-
Quintero v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc.
...and relievable in equity. See, e.g., A.L.G. Enterprises v. Huffman, 660 S.W.2d 603 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1983), modified, 672 S.W.2d 230 (Tex.1984). We overrule these last three grounds of error. The attorney who tried the case for the Quinteros, Francis Gandy, had knowledge of the judg......