Moss & Raley v. Wren
| Decision Date | 23 June 1909 |
| Citation | 120 S.W. 847 |
| Parties | MOSS & RALEY v. WREN. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
C. C. Fredericks, for appellant. F. P. Powell and Hunter & Hunter, for appellee.
Upon consideration of the motion for a rehearing in this case, we are of opinion that we erred in disposing originally of the question.
Referring to the stipulation quoted at the end of the statement of the case, it is to be noted that it provides that the $1,000 put up as a forfeit "shall be paid to the seller by said trustees and accepted by said seller as liquidated damages for such injury and damage as the seller may suffer by reason of the nonperformance of this contract on part of the purchaser." Now it occurs to us that, if nothing had been said as to the acceptance of the $1,000 by the seller, our original opinion would have been correct; but, if the seller is bound to accept the sum for such damages as may be suffered by reason of the nonperformance of the contract on part of the purchaser, can he sue the proposed purchaser for specific performance of the contract? The contract evidently was that the proposed purchaser should have until a future day to pay the price and accept a conveyance, yet, should he decline for any reason to pay the price and to accept the land, he may pay the liquidated damages and be absolved from further suit.
Moss & Raley entered into a contract with Clark to sell him certain lands, and stipulated that, in case he failed to buy, he should forfeit $1,000, which had been put up to enforce the bargain. They chose to forfeit the $1,000, which absolved them from further obligation. Before Wren was entitled to his commission, he should have procured a purchaser who was willing to enter into a contract to purchase the land absolutely.
For this reason, we answer the question in the negative.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
C. C. Slaughter Cattle Co. v. Potter County
... ... Long, 104 Iowa, 39, 73 N. W. 470; Allison v. Cocke's Ex'r, 106 Ky. 763, 51 S. W. 593; Moss v. Wren, 102 Tex. 567, 113 S. W. 739, 120 S. W. 847; Redwine v. Hudman, 104 Tex. 21, 133 S. W. 426; ... ...
-
Bourland v. Huffhines
...strongly to construe such stipulations as providing for the penalty rather than for liquidated damages." The case of Moss & Raley v. Wren, 102 Tex. 567, 113 S. W. 739, 120 S. W. 847, is often referred to as the leading case in this state upon the point under discussion. In all of the cases ......
-
Hood v. Campbell
...Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Kentucky, 161 U. S. 677, 16 S. Ct. 714, 40 L. Ed. 849. The test applied by the Supreme Court in Moss v. Wren, 102 Tex. 567, 120 S. W. 847, on rehearing was: "Could the seller sue purchaser for specific performance of the contract?" There are many cases holding th......
-
Lewis v. Martin
...P. 265; Smith v. Nichols Land Co., 207 N.W. 302; California Land Co. v. Ritchie, 180 P. 625; Simpson v. Eaberly, 137 S.W. 378; Moss & Raley v. Wren, 120 S.W. 847; Kolb v. Bennett Land Co., 74 Miss. 567; Hollister Frelison (Miss.), 114 So. 385. Argued orally by H. C. Holden and E. J. Ford, f......