Roberts v. Armstrong
Decision Date | 03 April 1919 |
Docket Number | (No. 7656.) |
Citation | 212 S.W. 227 |
Parties | ROBERTS et al. v. ARMSTRONG. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Wharton County; Sam'l J. Styles, Judge.
Suit by R. A. Armstrong against B. C. Roberts and another, executors. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Hall & Barclay and Kelley & Hawes, all of Wharton, for appellants.
Gaines & Corbett, of Bay City, for appellee.
This suit was originally brought by R. A. Armstrong against G. C. Gifford, deceased, to recover the sum of $2,835.90, alleged to be due for services rendered by him in procuring a purchaser for certain lands of Gifford. While the suit was pending, Gifford died, and the executors of his will, Annie Gifford and B. C. Roberts, were made parties.
The suit was based on a contract between appellee, Armstrong, and Gifford, deceased, dated February 21, 1913, by which appellee, in consideration of $1,000, was given an option on 531 acres of land owned by Gifford, situated in Wharton county, until the 1st day of August, 1913, at $60 per acre. The contract provided that the consideration should be one-fifth in cash and the balance in one, two, three, and four years, and appellee was given the right to sell the land on or before August 1, 1913, on the same terms of his option, and Gifford agreed to make a deed to the vendee. It was also provided that if appellee sold the land for more than $60 an acre the profit should go to him, but that he should take a proportionate amount of the notes to have a lien secondary to those taken by Gifford. To pay the $1,000 cash to be paid for the option, appellee was to convey to Gifford nearly 4 acres of land in the town of Wharton.
Afterwards, on August 9, 1913, some dispute having arisen as to whom the rents of the 531 acres should belong, another contract was drawn, providing that possession of the land should not be given until January 1, 1914, and that the land in Wharton should be reconveyed to appellee, and it was further provided:
"And whether said deed be made to said Armstrong, or to some other person at his direction, the right of said Armstrong shall exist to claim said rents and crops, and to sue for and recover the same in his own name, provided he, or the vendee, or both, were entitled to a deed under said contract which would have passed the rents and crops, and as if a deed had been executed thereunder, in accordance with the terms of said contract, and the right of said Gifford to claim and retain said rents and crops shall exist if such right existed under said contract, without regard to the language of the deed now to be made to the said Armstrong or his order, or the terms stipulated in said deed."
It is provided in the last contract that the changes as to the interest not beginning until January 1, 1914, or other matters therein, should in no way affect the rights of the parties under the original contract as to rents and crops, but that their rights should rest strictly on the terms of the original contract.
This is the second appeal of this case. Upon the first trial judgment was rendered for the executors, Annie Gifford and B. C. Roberts. On appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fourth District, at San Antonio, in an opinion by Chief Justice Fly, reported in 196 S. W. 723, that judgment was, on the 6th day of June, 1917, reversed. In that opinion, after stating the nature of the case and result of trial, it is said:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kuehn v. Kuehn
... ... See 232 S. W. 925, This court will follow his conclusion without further discussion. Roberts v. Armstrong (Tex ... Page 296 ... Civ. App.) 212 S. W. 227. Appellants have also filed additional authorities on this point. We have read them ... ...
-
Miller v. Winn
...the "law of the case" governing the trial court on a subsequent trial. In Roberts v. Armstrong, by the Galveston Court of Civil Appeals, 212 S. W. 227, it was said, quoting from the headnote, that: "On subsequent appeal, Court of Civil Appeals will follow law as announced by decision on for......
-
Roberts v. Armstrong
...defendant in his stead on his death. From judgment for plaintiff, defendants appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, which affirmed (212 S. W. 227), and defendants bring error. Judgments of the trial court and Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and case remanded for further proceedings on rec......
-
First State Bank of Bishop v. Grebe, 11110.
...Court in the first appeal in the same case (Armstrong v. Gifford, 196 S.W. 723) and opinion of the Galveston Court in the second appeal. 212 S.W. 227. In its mandate in that case this Court reversed the judgment and "remanded the cause for further proceedings in accordance with" the reversi......