Smith v. Navarro
Decision Date | 19 March 1934 |
Docket Number | No. 2522.,2522. |
Parties | SMITH v. NAVARRO. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Harris County Court; Nat H. Davis, Judge.
Action by A. R. Navarro against J. W. Smith. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Hardway & Cathey, of Houston, for appellant.
Sewell, Taylor, Morris & Garwood, of Houston, for appellee.
This appeal is from a judgment of the county court of Harris county, the appeal being originally to the Court of Civil Appeals at Galveston and the case was transferred to this court on equalization of the docket by the Supreme Court.
The suit was filed by appellee, A. R. Navarro, to recover the sum of $325 for two months rent alleged to be due under the terms of a written contract of lease entered into between the appellee, Navarro, as lessor, and appellant, Smith, as lessee. The case is before us on an agreed statement of facts. The written contract of lease was dated January 18, 1927, and was to run for a term of ten years, the appellant agreeing to pay for the first and second years an annual rental of $1,650 per year, for the third and fourth years $1,800 per year, for the fifth and sixth years $1,950 per year, for the seventh and eighth years $2,100 per year, and for the ninth and tenth years $2,250 per year. All rentals were to be paid in advance in monthly installments.
At the time of entering into the contract the property was unimproved, and appellee agreed to erect thereon for the use of appellant a brick building according to plans and specifications which were agreed to and attached to the contract. The lease contract contained the following provisions:
The building was constructed according to agreement and appellant entered into possession of the property and occupied it until the 23d day of May, 1932, at which time, being in default for the payment of rents for a period of two months, he vacated the premises at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kanter v. Safran
...been defined as 'the pecuniary compensation, recompense or satisfaction for an injury sustained.' 8 R.C.L. 420, cited in Smith v. Navarro, Tex.Civ.App., 69 S.W.2d 794, in which this same conclusion was If, however, the provision for the forfeiture of the deposit cannot be upheld as a stipul......
-
Platt v. Mannheimer
...been defined as 'the pecuniary compensation, recompense or satisfaction for an injury sustained.' 8 R.C.L. 420, cited in Smith v. Navarro, Tex.Civ.App., 69 S.W.2d 794, in which this same conclusion was This principle of law is dictum to the point involved in that case as will be shown by an......
-
Platt v. Mannheimer
... ... 420, cited in Smith v. Navarro, Tex.Civ.App., ... 69 S.W.2d 794, in which this same conclusion was reached.' ... In this case, as in Mangus v. Present, ... ...