Maddox v. Worsham

• Decision Date: 01 May 1967
• Docket Number: No. 7710,7710
• Citation: 415 S.W.2d 222
• Parties: W. A. MADDOX, Appellant, v. Jack WORSHAM et al., Appellees. . Amarillo
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 222

415 S.W.2d 222

W. A. MADDOX, Appellant, v. Jack WORSHAM et al., Appellees.

No. 7710.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas Amarillo.

May 1, 1967.

Rehearing Denied May 29, 1967.

Clayton & Clayton, Amarillo, Cleo G. Clayton, Jr., Amarillo, of counsel, for appellant.

Sanders, Scott, Saunders, Brian & Humphrey, Amarillo, Howard F. Saunders, Amarillo, of counsel, for appellees.

NORTHCUTT, Justice.

This is an action for damages based on fraud and deceit in a real estate transaction. J. L. Worsham, J. R. Walsh, Jr. and V. L. Watkins, as plaintiffs, brought this suit against W. A. Maddox, as defendant, for damages which the plaintiffs contend resulted from fraud and deceit practiced on the plaintiffs by defendant when plaintiffs leased a certain ranch in New Mexico from the defendant and a breach by the defendant of the lease provisions in failing to deliver the plaintiffs full and exclusive possession of the land which defendant had contracted to deliver to the plaintiffs. The defendant filed a general denial and denied that he expressly advised the plaintiffs or any of them that the Maddox Ranch definitely contained 30,000 acres or more and further pleaded that he never at any time breached any of the terms of the lease. The defendant filed a cross-action to have the lease cancelled and terminated and defendant recover all rentals accruing and owing to defendant. The lease contract was cancelled by agreement of the parties with the agreement that neither party waived their right to any action that they might have.

The case was tried to the court without a jury. Judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiffs for the sum of $25,207.88, and denied the defendant any relief upon his cross-action. From that judgment the defendant perfected this appeal. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were in the trial court.

The defendant requested the trial judge for separate findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court made and entered such findings and conclusions as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT

'1. A grass lease contract was executed and delivered, dated February 22, 1963, between W. A. Maddox, as lessor, and J. L. Worsham, J. R. Walsh, Jr., and V. L. Watkins, as lessees, leasing 30,000 acres of land, more or less, in Mora, Harding, and San Miguel Counties, New Mexico, to lessees.

'2. Plaintiffs paid Defendant the total sum of $64,000.00 rental under the February 22, 1963, lease, $17,100.00 under lease termination agreement between Defendant and Plaintiffs dated October _ _, 1965.

'3. The February 22, 1963, lease agreement between Defendant and Plaintiffs was terminated by an agreement dated October _2r_, 1965, which was executed and delivered by all Plaintiffs and Defendant.

'4. Defendant, represented to Plaintiffs as a fact that his ranch, the Maddox Ranch, contained 30,000 acres or more, owned or leased by him, and would carry an average of 800 mother cows, and such representations were material representations.

'5. Defendant's representations found in Finding 4 supra were false and Defendant knew he owned no more than 20,940 acres of land and had leased no more than 3,398 acres of land as his Maddox Ranch.

'6. Defendant knew that his owned and leased land in his Maddox Ranch would not carry an average of 800 mother cows.

'7. Defendant's representations found in Finding 4 supra were made to induce Plaintiffs to execute and deliver the lease contract of February 22, 1963, and as representations of fact on which Plaintiffs could rely.

'8. Plaintiffs accepted as true and relied on Defendant's representations.

'9. Defendant did not place Plaintiffs in sole possession of the Maddox Ranch.

'10. Plaintiffs were damaged by Defendant's false representations of fact and Defendant's failure to put them in sole possession of the Maddox Ranch in the sum of $25,207.85.

'11. Intervenors have not been paid all commissions owed them by Defendant, and Defendant owes intervenors an $875.00 balance of commissions.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

'1. The ownership by Defendant of not more than 20,940 acres of fee land and not more than 3,398 acres of leased land as the Maddox Ranch is a material acreage shortage under the lease agreement of February 22, 1963, between Defendant, as lessor, and Plaintiffs, as lessees.

'2. The representations of Defendant to Plaintiffs and his acts and conduct leading to the execution of the February 22, 1963, lease agreement were an actual and legal fraud upon and against Plaintiffs .

'3. The failure of Defendant to place Plaintiffs in possession of 30,000 acres, more or less, of Maddox Ranch was a breach of Defendant's lease obligations.

'4. Plaintiffs have been damaged by Defendant's fraud and breach of his lease obligations, and in the sum of $25,207.85, which amount and costs herein, plus 6% Interest thereon from date of judgment, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendant.

'5. Intervenors are entitled to recover $875.00 additional commissions, as provided in the February 22, 1963, lease agreement, their costs herein, and 6% Interest thereon from date of judgment.'

The rights of the intervenors are not involved in this appeal.

The plaintiffs plead they sustained damages in the amount of $71,000 because of defendant's false statements and failure to deliver exclusive peaceful possession of the land defendant purportedly leased to the plaintiffs. No exceptions were levied as to any of the pleadings. The lease contract provided that the defendant warranted that he was the owner of the property specified and had the right to lease it to the plaintiffs in quiet possession and would warrant and defend the plaintiffs' possession against any and all persons whomsoever.

The only way we can determine under this record the basis upon which judgment was rendered is by considering the findings of fact and the conclusions of law. In Findings of Fact Nos. 9 and 10 it refers solely to the Maddox Ranch. It has no reference as to whether there was 30,000 acres or less in the ranch. The Conclusion of Law No. 3 holds the defendant's failure to place plaintiffs in possession of 30,000 acres, more or less, of the Maddox Ranch was a breach of defendant's lease obligation. That is not a holding that there was not 30,000 acres in the Maddox Ranch. Then Conclusion of Law No. 4 holds that plaintiffs were damaged by defendant's fraudulent breach of his lease obligation in the sum of $25,207.88. Defendant's obligation under the lease was that he warranted that he was the owner of the property specified And had the right to lease it to the plaintiffs. (Emphasis ours.) There is no question under this record but what defendant had let to other parties a portion of the Maddox Ranch prior to entering into the lease here involved and such parties were in possession of such land and were pasturing the same and defendant did not have the right to lease that portion of the ranch to the plaintiffs because he had previously let it to others. There is an abundance of evidence to sustain such holding. The defendant did not deliver possession to the plaintiffs of portion of said ranch as he had contracted to do but could not comply with the lease because he had fraudulently contracted to do something he could not do. We believe under this record judgment was granted against defendant because of his fraudulent representations among other fraudulent representations as to water on the ranch and the number of cattle the ranch would support that he could and did deliver to the plaintiffs full possession of the Maddox Ranch consisting of 30,000 acres and that he knew such representations were false. The damages as proven by the evidence because of such failure to perform as to the acreage and the representations as to the number of cattle the ranch would support would justify a finding of far in excess of that found by the trial court.

It seems to be the contention of defendant that the trial court erred in holding the defendant made fraudulent representations and breached his contract because there was no evidence of probative value that the ranch had less than 30,000 acres or that plaintiffs relied upon any representations of the defendant. The contract designates 30,000 acres were being leased. The undisputed record shows and so found by the court that the defendant did not have 30,000 acres to lease to the plaintiffs. There was evidence the lease was based upon the price of $1.00...