Pippin Bros. v. Thompson
Decision Date | 27 February 1927 |
Docket Number | (No. 487.) |
Citation | 292 S.W. 618 |
Parties | PIPPIN BROS. et al. v. THOMPSON.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, McLennan County; Sam R. Scott, Judge.
Suit by J. F. Thompson against Pippin Bros. and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and rendered.
Sleeper, Boynton & Kendall, of Waco, for appellants.
S. J. T. Smith, of Waco, for appellee.
Suit by appellee to recover money deposited under a contract for the sale of land by appellants to appellee, each of said parties having deposited $500. Appellee alleged that appellants had breached the contract and that he was entitled to recover the entire deposits of $1,000 as liquidated damages, but alleged in the alternative that, in the event he was not entitled to recover the $1,000 as liquidated damages, he was entitled to recover the $500 deposited by himself, because the contract under which such deposits had been made was void for reasons set out by him, and, further, that said deposit was put up by him as a penalty only to cover whatever damages Pippin Bros. might sustain by reason of his breach of said contract, and that they sustained no damages, etc. Appellants pleaded a general denial, and pleaded, further, that appellee had agreed to purchase said land under a written contract and had deposited $500 as liquidated damages in case he failed to carry out his part of said contract, etc., and that appellee did breach said contract, by reason of which appellants were entitled to recover appellee's deposit of $500, etc. The case was tried before the court without a jury, resulting in a judgment for appellee for $435, the court holding that appellants had not breached said contract, but that appellee had done so; however, the court held further that the $500 deposit by appellee was not intended as liquidated damages, but as a penalty, and that the only damage sustained by appellants by appellee's breach was $65; hence appellee was awarded a recovery of the $500 deposited by him less said damage sustained by appellants.
Appellants present two assignments properly raising the contention that the trial court erred in holding that the $500 deposit by appellee was a penalty, and in refusing to hold that same was liquidated damages, and in refusing to render judgment for appellants for same. The contract is as follows:
T. W. Glass was the real estate agent making said sale and with whom the deposits were made, and who still has same; hence he was made a party defendant and filed a joint answer with appellants.
The trial court filed the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
The correctness of the court's findings of fact is in no way challenged by assignment of error or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zucht v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.
...one merely for a 'penalty.' Eakin v. Scott, 70 Tex. 442, 7 S.W. 777; Reinhardt v. Borders, Tex.Civ.App., 184 S.W. 791; Pippin Bros. v. Thompson, Tex.Civ.App., 292 S.W. 618; Collier v. Betterton, 87 Tex. 440, 29 S.W. 467; Irvin v. Lambert, Tex.Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 495; Langever v. R. G. Smith......
-
First Nat. Bank in Dallas v. Kinabrew
...Waco 1929), reversed on other grounds, 36 S.W.2d 1007 (Tex.Comm'n App.1931, judgment adopted); Pippin Bros. v. Thompson, 292 S.W. 618, 619 (Tex.Civ.App. Waco 1927, writ dism'd). In the instant case, the question with regard to the power of attorney being general or special in nature is a qu......
-
Ferguson v. Ferguson
...a cause of action for liquidated damages. Durst v. Swift, 11 Tex. 273; Eakin v. Scott, 70 Tex. 442, 7 S.W. 777; Pippin Bros. et al. v. Thompson (Tex.Civ.App.) 292 S.W. 618; Yetter v. Hudson, 57 Tex. 604; Norman v. Vickery, 60 Tex.Civ.App. 449, 128 S.W. 452; Talkin v. Anderson (Tex.Sup.) 19 ......
-
Oetting v. Flake Uniform & Linen Service, Inc.
...prove actual damages where it cannot be said that the damages were certain, apparent or ascertainable. Pippin Bros. v. Thompson, 292 S.W. 618 (Tex. Civ. App., Waco 1927, writ dism'd); Schwarz v. Lee, 287 S.W. 519 (Tex. Civ. App., Fort Worth 1926, writ dism'd); McElroy v. Danciger, 241 S.W. ......