Park v. Swartz
| Decision Date | 26 May 1920 |
| Docket Number | (No. 2596.) |
| Citation | 222 S.W. 156 |
| Parties | PARK v. SWARTZ et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Alexander, Power & Ridgway, of Ft. Worth, for plaintiff in error.
Gover & Turner, of Ft. Worth, for defendants in error.
The defendants Swartz and Harris entered into a written contract with the plaintiff Park whereby he was to have the exclusive agency for the sale of certain lots belonging to the defendants in a town in Oklahoma for a stipulated compensation for each sale. According to the findings of the trial court the plaintiff entered upon the performance of the contract, expending about $1,000.00 in advertising the lots, for traveling expenses, etc., in carrying out the contract; and making a number of sales. While the contract was in full force, the defendants breached it and made its further performance by the plaintiff impossible by selling the remaining lots themselves or through other means. The plaintiff, on his part, had faithfully performed the contract up to that time. His suit was for the breach of the contract. He was awarded judgment in the amount as fixed by the contract for the sales which the action of the defendants deprived him from making.
On the appeal, the judgment was reversed by the honorable Court of Civil Appeals for the Second District, Chief Justice Conner dissenting. Because of the dissent and our belief that the judgment should have been affirmed, we granted the writ of error.
The loss suffered by the plaintiff is the measure of his damages. That loss is the amount as fixed by the contract which he would have earned but for the wrongful conduct of the defendants in preventing him from earning it. Upon establishing the contract, his readiness and willingness to perform it, and that he was denied opportunity to perform it through its wrongful breach by the defendants, rendering its performance by him impossible, the plaintiff made out his case; and prima facie was entitled as damages to the amount which under the contract he would, presumably, have earned if his rights had been respected. If the plaintiff could not or would not have performed the contract,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ebberts v. Carpenter Production Co.
...furnishing proof of which the defendant's own act had deprived them. The Supreme Court has made an analogous holding in Park v. Swartz, 110 Tex. 564, 222 S.W. 156. There the plaintiff was an agent for the sale of defendants' lots and the defendants prevented his performance by selling the l......
-
Empire Gas & Fuel Co. v. Pendar
...v. Pope, 29 Kan. 289; Linn v. Butler, 8 Colo. 355, 8 Pac. 588; Navigation Co. v. Wilcox, 52 N. C. 481, 78 Am. Dec. 260; Park v. Swartz, 110 Tex. 564, 222 S. W. 156; Williams v. Bank, 2 Pet. 96, 7 L. Ed. 360; Mains v. Haight, 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 81; Williston v. Perkins, 51 Cal. 554; Brackett v......
-
Vanston v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., 72-2670.
...allow as a prima facie measure of that reasonable profit the amount represented by the stipulated commission, citing Park v. Swartz, 110 Tex. 564, 222 S.W. 156 (1920); McDonald v. Davis, 389 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.Civ. App.1965). See also Pickett v. Bishop, 148 Tex. 207, 223 S.W.2d 222 (1949). Thu......
-
Albright v. Texcellere Corp.
...recover as damages the amount which under the contract he, presumably, would have earned had his right been respected. Park v. Swartz, 110 Tex. 564, 222 S.W. 156 (1920). In such instances the broker's cause of action is not to recover the commission promised to him but to recover damages fo......