Rabinowitz v. North Texas Realty Co.
Decision Date | 12 February 1925 |
Docket Number | (No. 6792.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Citation | 270 S.W. 579 |
Parties | RABINOWITZ v. NORTH TEXAS REALTY CO. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Denton County Court; E. I. Key, Judge.
Action by the North Texas Realty Company against D. Rabinowitz. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Emil Corenbleth, of Dallas, and Owsley & Owsley, of Denton, for appellant.
Sullivan, Speer & Minor, of Denton, for appellee.
The North Texas Realty Company, a partnership composed of J. H. Barton and W. R. Sullivan, of Denton, Tex., sued D. Rabinowitz to recover $375, claimed as commissions due for services rendered as brokers in a transaction involving the exchange of real estate between said Rabinowitz and Joe Darnall. Darnall owned about 226 acres of land in Denton county, and Rabinowitz an improved lot in Ranger, Tex. The Realty Company brought them together; they agreed upon the terms of exchange of their properties, and entered into a written contract embodying those terms. Contemporaneously with the execution of said contract, D. Rabinowitz executed and delivered to plaintiff the following:
Rabinowitz defended in said suit on the grounds, amongst others, that his contract with Darnall was unenforceable; that Darnall had failed to make good title to his lands; that said commission was not due and payable until the deal was finally consummated; and that, since it was never consummated, he did not owe plaintiff anything.
The case was tried to the court without a jury and judgment rendered against Rabinowitz for $375. From this judgment, he has appealed.
Opinion.The first contention made by appellant is that his contract with Darnall was unenforceable. This contract provided for the conveyance by each to the other of their respective tracts of land, and that appellant in addition to conveying his lot in the town of Ranger, Tex., was to pay Darnall $1,500 in cash and assume an indebtedness of $9,266.50 against Darnall's 226 acres of land in Denton county. It also provided that each was to furnish the other an abstract, certified to date, showing good title; that each was to have 30 days in which to have his abstract examined and, in case any objections were raised by either, same should "be met and cured by them as speedily as possible." Section VI of said contract further provided as follows:
It is this section which appellant insists makes the contract unenforceable, citing Smith v. Felder (Tex. Civ. App.) 208 S. W. 409; Moss v. Wren, 102 Tex. 569, 113 S. W. 739, 120 S. W. 847; Clark v. Asbury (Tex. Civ. App.) 134 S. W. 288; and Redwine v. Hudman, 104 Tex. 23, 133 S. W. 426. Contracts of this character, containing options, forfeiture provisions, or providing for liquidated damages, in various terms, have been before the courts repeatedly. The contract itself must be looked to in each instance. Judge Williams of the Supreme Court, in Redwine v. Hudman, 104 Tex. 21, 133 S. W. 426, states with approval the controlling principle in such cases as follows:
We have not set out in full the contract between Rabinowitz and Darnall. It clearly appears, however, that it was the manifest intention of the parties to exchange their properties. The matter of possession, taxes, rents, and interest are all specifically determined in the contract. Nor do we think the liquidated damage clause above set out in any wise detracts from the principal obligation — that is, the conveyance by the respective parties of their lands — or that it permits either party to convey his land, or at his option to pay the $2,500. The case of La Prelle v. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.) 220 S. W. 151, presented this question in a contract very similar to that under consideration here. In that case the line of cases cited by appellant was reviewed and such contract held to be enforceable. The language there used is well applicable to the instant case. This court, there speaking through Judge Jenkins, used the following language:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Crichton v. Halliburton & Moore
... ... The ... cases of Lizano v. Brown Realty Co., 146 Miss. 758, ... 111 So. 667, and Hayes v. Goodman-Leonard ... 646, cited in 9 C. J ... 629; Roger's v. McMillen, 62 Texas Civ. App ... 486, 132 S.W. 853, L. R. A. 1915E, page 714; Mercantile ... v. Point Richmond Canal Co., 171 Cal ... 238; Pederson v. North Yakima & East Selah In. Co., ... 63 Wash. 636, 116 P. 279; Staskey v. mith (Tex. Civ ... App.), 268 S.W. 1057; Rabinowitz v. North Texas ... Realty Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 270 S.W. 579; Vining v ... ...
-
Peters v. Coleman
...for a commission that the contract stipulates that a commission is not to be paid until the sale is completed. Rabinowitz v. North Texas Realty Co., Tex.Civ.App., 270 S.W. 579, writ dismissed; Heath v. Huffhines, supra; Kahlich v. Watson, Tex.Civ.App., 96 S.W.2d 820; Lattimore v. George J. ......
-
Roth v. Hartl
...Levin, 118 Wash. 620, 204 P. 808, 32 A.L.R. 578; Donahoe v. Franks, D.C., 199 F. 262; Rabinowitz v. North Texas Realty Co., Tex.Civ.App., 270 S.W. 579; Cincinnati-Louisville Theater Co. v. Masonic Widows' and Orphans' Home and Infirmary, 6 Cir., 272 F. 637. The presence in such a contract o......
-
Halliburton v. Crichton
...& Land Co., 152 P. 434; Pederson v. Yakima & East Selah Irrigation Co., 116 P. 279; Staskey v. Smith, 268 S.W. 1057; Rabinowitz v. North Tex. Realty Co., 270 S.W. 579; Vining v. Mo-La-Oil Co., 279 S.W. 747; Construction Co. v. Goldsborough, 128 A. 754; Ratzlaff v. Trainor-Desmond Co., 183 P......