Langever v. R. G. Smith & Co.
| Decision Date | 10 December 1925 |
| Docket Number | (No. 519-4195.) |
| Parties | LANGEVER v. R. G. SMITH & CO.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Marvin H. Brown and Chas. T. Rowland, both of Fort Worth, for plaintiff in error.
Sawyers & Ambrose, of Fort Worth, for defendants in error.
Plaintiff in error sued the defendants in error in the district court of Tarrant county to recover the sum of $3,150, alleged to be due as a balance upon a contract whereby the defendants in error undertook to pay to plaintiff in error certain monthly rentals for his services in constructing and maintaining, for a term of three years, certain billboard advertising. There was a judgment for the plaintiff, and, upon appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded the cause, and the same is now before this court to review the holding of that court as to the measure of damages applied.
The contract sued upon is set out in full in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, and need not here be repeated. 261 S. W 450. The case depends upon the construction of the following language contained in the order constituting the contract:
The trial court held that, upon a breach by defendants, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the aggregate of the unpaid rentals for the entire period of time covered by the contract, and the Court of Civil Appeals, upon reversing, held that he was entitled to recover damages for the delinquency of the defendants in error, and for whatever he lost of the value of the job or time or preparation or loss of other jobs, but not the whole contract price.
Counsel for plaintiff in error does not controvert the rule as to the measure of damages applied by the Court of Civil Appeals, if this is only an ordinary case of damages for breach of a contract embracing personal services, but the insistence is that the stipulations above quoted constitute an agreement for liquidated damages, and that therefore the recovery by him in the trial court was correct.
There can be no doubt that the rule announced by the Court of Civil Appeals is ordinarily the correct measure of damages for a breach of an executory contract involving personal services, or additional expense in further performance.
Whether or not the stipulation above quoted make this an exception to the general rule is the main question about which all other questions are gathered, and a determination of it will control the disposition of the case.
Whether or not a stipulation for the payment of a sum is intended as a penalty or as liquidated damages is primarily, if not wholly, a question of the intention of the parties, and, where the contract is in writing and is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zucht v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.
...292 S.W. 618; Collier v. Betterton, 87 Tex. 440, 29 S.W. 467; Irvin v. Lambert, Tex.Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 495; Langever v. R. G. Smith & Co., Tex.Com.App., 278 S.W. 178;Ferguson v. Ferguson, Tex.Civ.App., 110 S.W.2d 1016; Hyde v. Claude Neon Federal Co., Tex.Civ.App., 157 S.W.2d 952.Where the......
-
Pippin Bros. v. Thompson
...contract, as a matter of law. Farrar v. Beeman, 63 Tex. 175; Gillespie v. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.) 179 S. W. 1101; Langever v. Smith & Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 278 S. W. 178. We are aware of the fact that there are cases where the contract stipulated for liquidated damages to be paid by the de......
-
Kelsey v. Blackman
...its terms as a whole and in the light of the subject-matter and the circumstances under which it was made. Langever v. R. G. Smith & Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 278 S. W. 178, 179, and authorities there cited; Yetter v. Hudson, 57 Tex. 604, 613; Durst v. Swift, 11 Tex. 273, 281, 282; Moore v. Ande......
-
In re Dow Corning Corp.
...will always be easy to estimate. For this proposition, the district court relied significantly on language from Langever v. R.G. Smith & Co., 278 S.W. 178, 179 (Tex.Ct.App.1925): In determining the intention of the parties to such stipulation, certain well-recognized rules of construction e......