Runck v. Dimmick
Decision Date | 03 June 1908 |
Citation | 111 S.W. 779 |
Parties | RUNCK v. DIMMICK et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Nueces County Court; Walter F. Timon, Judge.
Action by John J. Runck against W. F. Dimmick and wife. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
F. H. Booth, for appellant. S. N. Dorsett and Jno. A. Pope, for appellees.
This a suit by John J. Runck against W. F. Dimmick and wife to recover $400 alleged to be due under a contract on the part of Dimmick and wife to pay Runck 5 per cent. commission to sell their tract of land for $8,000. The case was tried without a jury, and judgment was for defendants, from which plaintiff appeals.
We find in the record what is certified to be a statement of facts and conclusions of law signed only by the county judge. In company with it and a part of it are the court's conclusions of law. As the court was requested to file conclusions of law and fact, we are somewhat at a loss to denominate this paper. No other statement of facts appear in the record. It was shown that appellees, Dimmick and wife, employed Runck to sell their small tract of land near Corpus Christi at the price of $8,000, and agreed to give him as commissions 5 per cent. of the purchase price. The only evidence to show that appellant had earned and was entitled to the commissions was a contract executed by appellees and one McWilliams, which was introduced in evidence by appellant and which was drawn up and witnessed by him. We copy from appellant's brief under his fourteenth assignment of error, as follows: The $400 mentioned as earnest money was by a check deposited in the Corpus Christi National Bank. It was shown that there had been in fact no sale made.
The trial court found that the conclusion of law that the contract was nonenforceable against McWilliams, a mere option under which he had the right either to take the land or forfeit the earnest money, and that, therefore, appellant was not entitled to recover. In this we think there was no error. This is not a case where, after the parties have mutually stipulated the seller to sell and the buyer to take the land upon the terms agreed upon, it is further stipulated that a certain sum shall be paid by the buyer in case he fails to perform as a penalty for such failure; nor, indeed, a case where, after agreeing to buy,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Seifert v. Lanz
... ... 579, 72 N.W. 694 ... Specific ... performance cannot be decreed because of too indefinite ... description of the land. Runck v. Dimmick, 51 Tex ... Civ. App. 214, 111 S.W. 779 ... There ... is a distinction between a mere option to buy, and a ... ...
-
Sanders v. Berry
...appellant. 9 Corp. Jur. 604; 204 U.S. 228; 44 S.W. 819; Walker, Law of Real Est. Ag., § 85; Gross on Real Est. Brokers, p. 158, § 149; 111 S.W. 779; 106 Id. Neither appellant nor her land were liable for a commission never earned. 104 Ark. 459-464; 204 U.S. 228; 104 Ga. 157; 70 Id. 56; 54 N......
-
Crum v. Slade & Bassett
...398. We regard the following cases as supporting our construction of the contract: Rankin v. Grist, 129 S. W. 1147; Runck v. Dimmick, 51 Tex. Civ. App. 214, 111 S. W. 779; Burch v. Hester, 109 S. W. 399; Wilson v. Ellis, 106 S. W. 1152. It is urged that the last clause in the contract is re......