Montgomery v. McCaskill
| Decision Date | 15 November 1916 |
| Docket Number | (No. 5729.) |
| Citation | 189 S.W. 797 |
| Parties | MONTGOMERY v. McCASKILL. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; R. B. Minor, Judge.
Action by K. H. McCaskill against John F. Montgomery. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Gordon Bullitt, of San Antonio, for appellant. John D. Hartman, of San Antonio, for appellee.
This is a suit for damages arising out of the breach of a contract to exchange certain real estate, made by and between appellant and appellee. The cause was submitted to the jury on special issues, and upon the answers judgment was rendered in favor of appellee in the sum of $3,852.
It was alleged that a contract had been entered into between appellant and appellee whereby appellee sold to appellant four sections of land in Winkler county, Tex., there being an incumbrance on the land of $5.55 an acre, and received in exchange for the same from appellant a property in San Antonio known as the Glenwood Apartments, located on four lots, together with four lots lying back of and adjoining the apartment lots, and the furniture in such apartments. It was recited in the contract that there was an incumbrance on the city property of $18,400, which was assumed by appellee, with the exception of $1,500 which was to be paid by appellant. Appellee alleged a breach of the contract by the refusal of appellant to accept the deed tendered him by appellee, and by a refusal to execute and deliver to appellee a deed to said city property.
The measure of damages in this suit would be the difference in the market value of the property in Winkler county and the property in the city of San Antonio. Sedgwick, Damages, § 1020. That is, if the market value of the four sections of land in Winkler county was of less value at the time of the breach of contract than the property in the city of San Antonio, appellee, under proper allegations, was entitled to recover the difference in values. The only attempt on the part of appellee to allege the value of the properties was:
"The plaintiff further avers that the four sections of land in Winkler county, Tex., mentioned in above contract were valued at $15.55, and that the plaintiff was to take the Glenwood Apartments, mentioned in the above contract, subject to an incumbrance of $18,400, and that the value of plaintiff's equity in the Glenwood Apartments, had the contract been carried out by the defendant, was about...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Medley v. Lamb
...Cooper v. Loughlin et ux., 75 Tex. 524, 13 S. W. 37; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Smith, 88 Tex. 9, 28 S. W. 931, 30 S. W. 549; Montgomery v. McCaskill, 189 S. W. 797. In the last-cited case the general rule was held to apply in cases like this. It is there held that proof of values of propert......
-
Morriss-Buick Co. v. Pondrom
...280 S.W. 622; Bradley v. Fagala, Tex.Civ. App., 25 S.W.2d 255; Medley v. Lamb, Tex. Civ.App., 223 S.W. 1048; Montgomery v. McCaskill, Tex.Civ.App., 189 S.W. 797; Robert & St. John Motor Co. v. Bumpass, Tex.Civ.App., 65 S.W.2d 399; Stafford et al. v. Drewry et al., Tex.Civ.App., 32 S.W. 2d 2......
-
Barton v. Flanagan
...Light & Power Co. v. Compton, 48 Tex. Civ. App. 586, 107 S. W. 1151; Cox v. Thompson (Tex. Civ. App.) 160 S. W. 604; Montgomery v. McCaskill (Tex. Civ. App.) 189 S. W. 797; Hranicky v. Sell (Tex. Civ. App.) 199 S. W. 315; Monk v. Crooker (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. The plaintiff having omitt......
-
Stallings v. Wood
...200 S. W. 559; McCamant v. McCamant (Tex. Civ. App.) 187 S. W. 1096; Medley v. Lamb (Tex. Civ. App.) 223 S. W. 1048; Montgomery v. McCaskill (Tex. Civ. App.) 189 S. W. 797. The other errors complained of we deem unnecessary to pass on, as it is hardly probable that same will again occur on ......