Lehrer v. Wegenhoft
Decision Date | 22 May 1947 |
Docket Number | No. 11856.,11856. |
Citation | 203 S.W.2d 245 |
Parties | LEHRER et al. v. WEGENHOFT et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Colorado County; Lester Holt, Judge.
Action by Roy Wegenhoft and another against William K. Lehrer and others for specific performance of an alleged option to purchase realty, wherein the Skelly Oil Corporation and Chicago Corporation intervened. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, the defendants and intervenors appeal.
Judgment reversed, and judgment rendered that plaintiffs take nothing by their suit.
Chas. D. Rutta and Miller & Rutta, all of Columbus, for appellants William K. Lehrer and others.
Robert Eikel and Royston & Rayzor, both of Houston, for appellants Hutchings-Sealy Nat. Bank and others.
Fred R. Switzer, E. D. Adams and Vinson, Elkins, Weems & Francis, all of Houston, for Skelly Oil Co. and others.
Massey & Hodges, of Columbus, for appellees.
This action was brought by appellees, Roy and Lavo Wegenhoft, for specific performance of a claimed option to purchase approximately 1366 acres of land in Colorado County, Texas. The option sought to be enforced had been granted to one Travis Smith by Hutchings-Sealy National Bank of Galveston, as executor and trustee, in a contract for the lease of said property. Appellees alleged that they had subleased the premises from Travis Smith and that the sublease agreement constituted an assignment of the lease and option to buy said land. They alleged that if they were mistaken in this and the sublease agreement did not have the effect of full assignment that it was then a mutual mistake of the parties as to the writing. They sought in the alternative reformation of the sublease agreement so as to include the option to purchase.
William K. Lehrer, and his associates, who had purchased said land by deed dated December 6, 1945, the Hutchings-Sealy National Bank, and Travis Smith were made parties defendant in the suit. Skelly Oil Corporation and Chicago Corporation, who held a mineral lease in said land, intervened.
In answer to special issues submitted a jury found in substance that Travis Smith and the Wegenhoft Brothers had intended and understood at the time of the execution of the sublease to appellees that the option to purchase the land in controversy was to be transferred to appellees and that the Wegenhofts had paid Travis Smith a valuable consideration for said option, and that a payment of $600 made by Lavo Wegenhoft to William K. Lehrer was not intended by him as an acknowledgment of Lehrer as his landlord.
Judgment was rendered in conformity with this verdict that the terms of the sublease from Travis Smith to appellees be reformed so as to vest the option to purchase said land in Roy and Lavo Wegenhoft upon the same terms as it had been conveyed to William K. Lehrer and others, and that the title to said premises be divested out of appellants William K. Lehrer and others and vested in appellees. An oil lease to Skelly Oil Company and Chicago Corporation was canceled.
The record reflects the following material facts: By instrument dated November 22, 1938, Hutchings-Sealy National Bank of Galveston, as executor and trustee of the estate of Ella B. Thompson, deceased, had leased the land in controversy to Travis Smith for a period of five years, with extension privilege of three additional years.
The following provisions of the lease are material to the appeal:
By instrument dated May 22, 1944, Travis Smith subleased said premises to appellees, Roy and Lavo Wegenhoft, for the balance of the term of the original lease and its extension. The terms and provisions of the sublease material to the appeal are:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dupree v. Piggly Wiggly Shop Rite Foods, Inc.
...v. Fort Worth Transit Co., 204 S.W.2d 1001 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1947, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Lehrer v. Wegenhoft, 203 S.W.2d 245 (Tex.Civ.App.--Galveston 1947, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Comer v. Brown, 285 S.W. 307 (Tex.Comm'n App.--1926, jdgmt. We have carefully reconsidered all of appellee's ......
-
Moore v. Kirgan
...the right of possession and creates a privity of estate and contract between the original lessor and the assignee. In Lehrer v. Wegenhoft, Tex.Civ.App., 203 S.W.2d 245 (w. r. n. r. e.), it was held that Revised Statutes of 1925, Art. 5237, prohibited the lessee from assigning to a sublessee......
-
Zeidman v. Davis, A-8080
...S.W.2d 47, 50, 73 A.L.R.2d 1109; Sinclair Refining Co. v. Womack, Tex.Civ.App., 66 S.W.2d 402, 405, no writ history; Lehrer v. Wegenhoft, Tex.Civ.App., 203 S.W.2d 245, writ refused, n. r. e. And so it is held that a sub-lessee does not acquire or succeed to the option of a lessee to purchas......
-
Houck v. Kroger Co., 1657
...such as an option to renew or purchase. Zeidman v. Davis, 161 Tex. 496, 342 S.W.2d 555, 558 (1961); Lehrer v. Wegenhoft, 203 S.W.2d 245, 249 (Tex.Civ.App.-Galveston 1947, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Aside from these questions of "probable right" and "probable injury", we affirm the order of the cou......
-
CHAPTER 3 ACQUIRING OPERATING RIGHTS FROM A LESSEE
...1968). [13] Novosad v. Clary, 431 S.W.2d 422, 427 (Tex.Civ.App. 1968). [14] Accord, Zeidman v. Davis, supra note 11; Lehrer v. Wegenhoft, 203 S.W.2d 245 (Tex.Civ.App. 1947); Guilbert v. Van Kleeck, 284 App.Div. 611, 132 N.Y.S2d 580 (1954). [15] See 3A THOMPSON, supra note 2, § 1210 n. 53. [......