Schonrock v. Taylor, 9726.

• Decision Date: 02 June 1948
• Docket Number: No. 9726.,9726.
• Parties: SCHONROCK v. TAYLOR.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

212 S.W.2d 260

SCHONROCK v. TAYLOR.

No. 9726.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

June 2, 1948.

Rehearing Denied June 16, 1948.

Appeal from 51st. District Court, Tom Green County; John F. Sutton, Judge.

Action by B. P. Taylor against E. A. Schonrock for damages for fraudulent mis-representations allegedly inducing plaintiff to purchase realty. From the judgment, defendant appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Clyde Vinson of San Angelo, for appellant.

Cliff Tupper and Scott Snodgrass, both of San Angelo, for appellee.

HUGHES, Justice.

Appellee, B. P. Taylor, sued appellant, E. A. Schonrock, for damages alleged to have been sustained in a real estate transaction between the parties.

Appellant owned 65 feet of improved property fronting on Avenue D in San Angelo, which he desired to sell. An advertisement to this effect was placed in the San Angelo Standard Times and was answered by Scott Snodgrass, a San Angelo attorney, who was acting for appellee and for himself as an undisclosed principal. The negotiations thus begun resulted in a sale of the property to appellee on April 2, 1946, for a cash consideration of $9,500. The deed described the property by lot and block number and admittedly conveyed only 65 front feet on Avenue D, being the property which appellant agreed to sell and appellee agreed to buy.

The improvements on the lots consisted of a one story concrete building located on the east 25 feet and a well built iron shed with a concrete floor, adjacent to and west of the concrete building. This shed is located at the rear or south end of the lots about 58 feet from the property line on Avenue D and is about 45 feet long and 62 feet wide. In other words the shed extends about 12 feet over and on the adjacent property to the west, which property was not owned by appellant, although he had possession of it under lease from the owner.

Appellee's suit was based upon false representation allegedly made by appellant during the pre-purchase negotiations, the material portion of his pleading being:

"During such negotiations and as part of them, the defendant represented that his property fronted on East Avenue D and ran back to an alley with the east line thereof being the east line of a one story concrete block building and with the west line thereof being located a few feet west of the west end of a metal building or shed which joined onto said concrete block building for approximately forty feet from its south end and which extended west from the building for approximately fifty feet. Said shed and building were constructed together to be used jointly and the defendant represented that he owned both of them and the lands on which they were situated, with his west line being some few feet west of the west side of said shed.

"* * * As stated, the defendant represented that he owned the property to a line a few feet west of the west side of said metal building but as a fact this was false and untrue in that the west line of the property owned by the defendant was located at approximately twelve feet east of the west side of said metal building and approximately the west twelve feet of said metal building was located upon property of another upon which the defendant held a lease. The defendant fraudulently concealed the fact that he held such lease and he pointed out the property he was proposing to sell as including that held by him under lease."

Appellant's answer consisted of a general denial and a plea that appellee was not justified in relying upon any representations, if any, made as to the location of the lot lines or improvements since appellee was fully informed as to the width of the property and of the physical facts concerning the location of the improvements.

The jury found that appellant, prior to the sale, represented to Scott Snodgrass that the west line of the property he was offering for sale was located west of the west end of the metal shed so as to include the land upon which the shed was located; that this representation was a material inducement to appellee to purchase the property and that the property as represented had a value of $9,500, and the value of the property actually conveyed was $9,000. Upon this verdict, judgment was rendered for appellee in the sum of $500.

Appellant, in his brief, has grouped the first eight points for discussion and we will accept his version of the questions raised as indicated by the following excerpt from his brief:

"In view of the undisputed evidence that no certain line was indicated on the ground by anything appellant said or did, and in view of the pleading itself, that the line allegedly pointed out was a few feet west of the west edge of the metal shed, the area between the west line of the property actually owned and conveyed and the west line allegedly pointed out and the proof as to same, was uncertain and indefinite, necessarily, and no basis existed for expert opinion on the value of such area, and no basis existed for any issue to be submitted to the jury as to the value of such area."

It is true that the exact location of the west line was not pointed out by appellant; only that it was west of the west end of the shed. It is also true that appellee knew he was buying only 65 front feet on Avenue D.

In support of his contention that the pleadings and proof were insufficient, appellant cites Rahl v. Compton, Tex.Civ.App., 112 S.W.2d 509 (Writ Dis.), and Hughes v. Belman, Tex.Civ.App., 200 S.W.2d 431 (Writ Ref.NRE), both by this court.

Those cases involved a shortage in acreage and the evidence was held insufficient to show the value of the land actually conveyed; hence there was no basis for a judgment. We adhere to the rules of law announced in these decisions. There is no similarity between the facts in those...