Wooten Properties, Inc. v. Smith
| Decision Date | 22 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 5584,5584 |
| Citation | 368 S.W.2d 707 |
| Parties | WOOTEN PROPERTIES, INC., a corporation, Appellant, v. Frankie Lou SMITH, Independent Executrix of the Estate of Houston Smith, Jr., Deceased, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
T. J. McMahon, McMahon, Smart, Sprain, Wilson & Camp, Abilene, for appellant.
Stubbeman, McRae, Sealy & Laughlin, Rush Moody, Jr., Midland, for appellee.
This action was filed in the court below by the appellee against the appellant (defendant in the court below) to recover the sum of $11,600.00, which appellee contended in the court below represented the balance of the purchase price of certain real property located in Wichita County, Texas, which property was the subject of an option contract between Houston Smith, Jr., predecessor in title to the appellee, and the appellant, the controversy arising over the consideration to be paid by appellant for said property upon the exercise by it of its option to purchase the same.
Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, and upon the hearing of these motions the court sustained that of the plaintiff in the court below (appellee here), and denied the motion of appellant.
The contract provisions with which we are here concerned are as follows:
'2.
'The agreed consideration to be paid for the above described property and improvements located therein is Three Hundred Ninety Thousand ($390,000.00) Dollars if such option is exercised during the first year of this agreement.
Both parties agree that the contract is unambiguous and clear and that the above provisions are all that need be considered in this lawsuit. The plaintiff here appears as executrix of the estate of her deceased husband, who was party to the original contract.
Inasmuch as both parties agree that there is no fact question involved, it is obvious that this is a clear case where a summary judgment is called for.
Both parties further agree, in context and by authority, that in a case such as this, where the wording of a contract is unambiguous, we do not have to deal with or concern ourselves with what intention existed in the minds of the parties, but must interpret such contract with respect to its intention and effect solely from the language used. 17 C.J.S. Contracts Sec. 296, p. 695 et seq. It is also well established that an unambiguous contract which does...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Davenport
...However, it is not the province of this Court to relieve her of a bad bargain, no matter how harsh. Wooten Prop., Inc. v. Smith, 368 S.W.2d 707, 709 (Tex. Civ. App.-El Paso 1963, writ ref d); River Birch, Inc. v. Robin & Assocs., Inc., 906 So.2d 729, 737 (La. Ct.App. 1 Cir.2005). Her later ......
-
Venture Cotton Coop. & Noble Americas Corp. v. Freeman
...one or more of the parties contracted wisely or foolishly, or created a hardship for himself.” Wooten Props., Inc. v. Smith, 368 S.W.2d 707, 709 (Tex.Civ.App.–El Paso 1963, writ ref'd). Texas courts therefore do not ordinarily inquire into the reasons for the contract or the relative fairne......
-
Crozier v. Horne Children Maintenance and Educational Trust
...and that it is not proper to look elsewhere for their intention. Id. at 154, 146 S.W.2d at 980; Wooten Properties, Inc. v. Smith, 368 S.W.2d 707, 708-09 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1963, writ ref'd). In Mattison, Inc. v. W. F. Larson, Inc., 529 S.W.2d 271 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1975, writ ref'd n......
-
Dedier v. Grossman
...was effected.' 13 Tex.Jur.2d, Contracts, § 130, pp. 307--308; Menard v. Sydnor, 29 Tex. 257 (1867); Wooten Properties, Inc. v. Smith, 368 S.W.2d 707 (Tex.Civ.App., El Paso 1963); Phillips v. Seiberling Rubber Co., 278 S.W.2d 293 (Tex.Civ.App., El Paso (9) Words and phrases used in a contrac......