Landis v. W. H. Fuqua, Inc.
Decision Date | 12 January 1942 |
Docket Number | No. 5376.,5376. |
Citation | 159 S.W.2d 228 |
Parties | LANDIS et al. v. W. H. FUQUA, Inc. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Potter County; W. E. Gee, Judge.
Suit by Thomas Landis and another against W. H. Fuqua, Incorporated, to recover commission alleged to be due plaintiffs for services they rendered to defendant under an oral contract by the terms of which defendant employed plaintiffs and agreed to pay them for the sale of two ranches. From a judgment dismissing the action, following sustaining of defendant's demurrer to the petition and refusal of plaintiffs to amend, the plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
James O. Cade, of Lubbock, for appellants.
Underwood, Johnson, Dooley & Wilson, of Amarillo, for appellee.
This suit was instituted by the appellants, Thomas L. Landis and the Southern States Loan Company, a corporation, to recover the sum of $3,000 as commission alleged to be due appellants for services they rendered to appellee under an oral contract made in 1940 by the terms of which appellee employed appellants and agreed to pay them for the sale of two ranches fully described in their petition.
Appellants alleged they procured purchasers ready, willing and able to buy and who did buy from appellee said two ranches for the consideration and on the terms and conditions contained in the listing contract.
Appellants' alleged cause of action is sufficiently stated in the following language:
In answer to appellants' petition, appellee filed and presented general exceptions in which it urged that since the agreement upon which the suit was based was conceded to be oral, appellants could not recover thereon because the Real Estate Dealers License Act requires that in order to maintain an action for the recovery of any commission for the sale of real estate the promise or agreement upon which such action is brought or some memorandum thereof shall be in writing and signed by the parties sought to be bound thereby.
The demurrers urged by appellee were sustained by the trial court. The appellants refused to amend. The case was dismissed and this action of the court is before us for review.
The appellants challenge as error the judgment of the court in holding that they could not maintain their suit on account of the Real Estate Dealers License Act, since the contract in this case has been executed; that they alleged the appellee had accepted the benefits of appellants' services, conveyed the two ranches to the purchasers they procured for the consideration and on the terms required in the listing contract; that such allegations must be accepted as true and therefore the appellee waived the statute and is estopped to plead the provisions thereof relied on as a defense to the oral contract, but, if they are not entitled to recover on the express oral contract, then they are entitled to recover on a quantum meruit for the reasonable value of their services.
The statute of frauds, article 3995, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, so far as applicable to this controversy, reads as follows:
Section 22 of the Real Estate Dealers License Act, General Laws, Forty-Sixth Legislature, page 576, Vernon's Ann.Civ. Art. 6573a, is as follows: "No action shall be brought in any court in this State for the recovery of any commission for the sale or purchase of real estate unless the promise or agreement upon which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum thereof, shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or by some person by him thereto lawfully authorized."
In Cargill et al. v. Kountze et al., 86 Tex. 386, 22 S.W. 1015, 25 S.W. 13, 15, 24 L.R.A. 183, 40 Am.St.Rep. 853, Judge Gaines, speaking for the Supreme Court, says: "When the legislature re-enacts a statute which has been construed by the courts, the presumption is that it intended that the new enactment should receive the same construction as the old."
In Priddy v. Green et al., Tex. Civ.App., 220 S.W. 243, 253, it is held: .
See also Pou v. Dominion Oil Co., Tex. Com.App., 265 S.W. 886.
The appellants' contention is that the statute of frauds was passed to prevent fraud and perjury and that the policy of the law is that such laws should never be given effect when the enforcement thereof would perpetrate a fraud. They urge with much force and plausibility that under the admitted facts and under these authorities they are entitled to recover because they were suing on an executed contract or, in the alternative, on their plea of quantum meruit.
What we have stated makes manifest the fact that this suit is controlled solely by the interpretation and effect given to Section 22 of the Real Estate Dealers License Act, supra. Appellee contends that this statute must be limited by the court in its construction to mean only what it says. The legal proposition here considered, so far as the authorities presented by the attorneys and so far as we have been able to find, is one of first impression. However there are...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Goen v. Hamilton
...little comfort or benefit to the appellants, provided we are correct in our decision of January 12, 1942 in the case of Landis et al. v. W. H. Fuqua, Inc., 159 S.W.2d 228. That was another case of first impression in Texas and we there held that the appellant broker who sued for such a comm......
-
Trammell Crow Co. No. 60 v. Harkinson
...the same exceptions as may render oral contracts within the general statute of frauds enforceable. In Landis v. W.H. Fuqua, Inc., 159 S.W.2d 228 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1942, writ ref'd), the plaintiffs sued to recover a commission on an oral contract, asserting that they should recover the......
-
Moore v. Bearkat Energy Partners, LLC
...Id. at 64.Trammel Crow Co No. 60 v. Harkinson, 944 S.W.2d 631, 636 (Tex. 1997) (quoting Landis v. W.H. Fuqua, Inc., 159 S.W.2d 228, 231 (Tex. Civ. App.—Amarillo 1942, writ ref'd)). Aswas the case in Harkinson, Moore's compensation agreement does not provide the required specificity to meet ......
-
Roquemore v. Ford Motor Company
...McGree, Tex.Civ.App.1963, 374 S.W.2d 256, error ref., n. r. e.; Walker v. Keeling, Tex.Civ.App.1942, 160 S.W.2d 310; Landis v. Fuqua, Inc., Tex.Civ.App.1942, 159 S.W.2d 228, which relate to established Texas law that a real estate agent cannot recover in contract or in quantum meruit unless......