Leonard v. King
Decision Date | 07 March 1914 |
Citation | 164 S.W. 1110 |
Parties | LEONARD v. KING et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; Kenneth Foree, Judge.
Suit for specific performance by S. W. King, Jr., and others against Mrs. M. L. Leonard. From a decree for complainants, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
See, also, 135 S. W. 742.
N. G. Turney, W. L. Crawford, and J. C. Muse, all of Dallas, for appellant. Dabney & Townsend, M. D. Gano, and W. M. Coombes, all of Dallas, for appellees.
This is a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale of a certain lot in the city of Dallas, brought by appellee S. W. King, Jr., against appellant, Mrs. M. L. Leonard. The trial court instructed a verdict for appellee, which was accordingly done, and judgment rendered for appellee.
On November 12, 1909, the following contract was entered into, to wit:
The assignment of said contract by Kendall to King was made on the same day that the contract was executed. On the following day, to wit, November 13, 1909, Mrs. Leonard executed a general warranty deed, conveying the property to King, and King executed the notes and deed of trust evidencing and securing the deferred payments, and the said deed, notes, and deed of trust, together with King's check for $24,000, were delivered to the American Exchange National Bank, with a joint letter as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alexander v. Murray, 4487
...to ignore or waive this requirement, which was for his benefit. Lieber v. Nicholson, Tex.Com.App., 206 S.W. 512, 513; Leonard v. King, Tex.Civ.App., 164 S.W. 1110; 58 Tex.Jur.2d, Vendor and Purchaser, Sec. 155, p. 366; Sec. 173, p. 388. Appellant may not rescind because of her own The time ......
-
APPEAL OF WAGGONER, Docket No. 5880
...furnished by them. This did not take place until the year 1920. See, also, Davis v. Fant (Tex. Civ. App.) 93 S. W. 193; Leonard v. King (Tex. Civ. App.) 164 S. W. 1110; Jones v. Taylor 7 Tex. 240; Roos v. Thigpen (Tex. Civ. App.) 140 S. W. 1180; Duniven v. Turner (Tex. Civ. App.) 259 S. W. ......
-
Lund v. Emerson
...law giving the seller a reasonable time to correct the defects pointed out in the title opinion would apply in this case. Leonard v. King, Tex.Civ.App., 164 S.W. 1110; Lieber v. Nickolson, Tex.Com.App., 206 S.W. 512. This defect, if such existed, was cured by operation of law, September 3, ......
-
Hallman v. Safeway Stores, Incorporated, 23650.
...and if appellee is willing to forego the removal of the encumbrance, appellants have no cause to complain. See Leonard v. King, et al., Tex. Civ.App.1914, 164 S.W. 1110. Appellants also urge that the provision in the agreement allowing Buyer such period of time as necessary to purchase prop......