Paul v. Prince
Decision Date | 15 February 1921 |
Docket Number | (No. 7968.) |
Citation | 228 S.W. 1102 |
Parties | PAUL v. PRINCE. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Harris County; Ewing Boyd, Judge.
Suit by Allen Paul against H. Prince. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Presley K. Ewing and A. C. Allen, both of Houston, for appellant.
Louis, Campbell & Nicholson and W. A. Combs, all of Houston, for appellee.
Paul, as a real estate broker, claiming that he had duly performed the specified services, in that he had sold the property as agreed, and that Prince had refused to pay the commission, sued the latter upon this written contract:
The lot had on it what is known as the Lumberman's National Bank building. Plaintiff averred that he sold the property to Sakowitz Bros., a corporation, for $250,000, which sale the defendant accepted and ratified by making deed accordingly to the purchaser, whereby he became liable to plaintiff for the commission fixed in the contract declared upon.
In so far as is material here, the defendant answered with these two defenses:
(1) That the agreement for compensation was at first $2,500, but was increased to $3,500 under the false representation of the plaintiff (upon which defendant relied) that he had been compelled to engage assistant agency services towards financing the purchaser in order to enable it to buy, and that for this reason the compensation should not exceed $2,500.
(2) That the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the $2,500, or any amount, because, as alleged, he had, pending the transaction for the sale, and before its closing, without the knowledge of defendant, accepted employment from the purchaser corporation, Sakowitz Bros., and agreed with it to use his services to obtain the property at its price, to wit, $250,000, for a remuneration to be received by him, and which was afterwards paid to him.
In a supplemental pleading plaintiff vigorously denied these allegations of false representation and of disloyalty, but declared that, to use the language of his brief:
"After the sale transaction in question was closed, said purchaser gave him $2,500 for his services in an independent matter relating to the acquisition of certain leases by it, and wholly as a gratuity concerning the sale transaction in question, and without the slightest legal obligation on the purchaser's part in that respect."
The court tried the cause without a jury and rendered judgment denying the plaintiff any recovery; he appeals, attacking different features of the following findings of fact and the conclusions of law, filed by the court below at his request:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Slusher v. Moore
... ... with their approval. 4 R. C. L. 274, section 23, p. 276; ... Johnson v. Mitchell, 192 Ky. 444, 233 S.W. 884; ... Mechem on Agency, § 798; Paul v. Prince (Tex. Civ ... App.) 228 S.W. 1102; Baird v. Ryan, 35 S.W ... 132, 17 Ky. Law Rep. 1417; Temmen v. Sayre & Co., 1 S ... W. 875, 8 Ky ... ...
-
Slusher v. Moore
...acts with their approval. 4 R. C. L. 274, sec. 23, page 276; Johnson v. Mitchell, &c., 192 Ky. 444; Meecham on Agency, sec. 798; Paul v. Prince, 228 S. W. 1102; Baird v. Ryan, 17 Ky. Law Rep. 1417; Tenmen v. Sayre & 8 K. L. R. 421; Donnelly v. Cunningham, 58 Minn. 376; Tukesberry v. Spruenc......
-
Stein v. Sims
...him. Hahl v. Kellogg, 94 S. W. 389, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 636; O. E. Sears Land Co. v. Barton (Tex. Civ. App.) 227 S. W. 237; Paul v. Prince (Tex. Civ. App.) 228 S. W. 1102; Eidson v. Saxon (Tex. Civ. App.) 30 S. W. Having taken this view of the case, and concluded that plaintiffs are entitled ......
-
Clark v. Price, 13635.
...a commission for his services in disposing of his property. Moore v. Kelley, Tex.Civ.App., 162 S.W. 1034, writ refused; Paul v. Prince, Tex. Civ.App., 228 S.W. 1102, writ Sound public policy demands that such dealings be frowned upon and that they may not be made the basis for a recovery ag......