Young v. De La Garza

• Citation: 368 S.W.2d 667
• Decision Date: 24 May 1963
• Docket Number: No. 16179,16179
• Parties: Walter YOUNG, Appellant, v. Luther DE LA GARZA et al., Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas

Page 667

368 S.W.2d 667

Walter YOUNG, Appellant, v. Luther DE LA GARZA et al., Appellees.

No. 16179.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Dallas.

May 24, 1963.

Miller & Martin, Dallas, for appellant.

Goldberg & Alexander and James A. Baker, Dallas, for appellees.

WILLIAMS, Justice.

Appellant's suit upon a promissory note and foreclosure of a lien was answered by appellees by verified plea of misrepresentation and failure of consideration. By crossaction appellees affirmatively sought cancellation and rescission of the note and lien as well as recovery of money damages. Appellant's motion for summary judgment being overruled, the case proceeded to trial before the court, without a jury. Judgment was rendered that appellant take nothing; that the note and lien sued upon be cancelled; and that appellees recover $4,385.33 from appellant. Appellant seeks reversal of this decree upon eight points of error which we have carefully examined and finding no merit in any of them, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

FACTS

On October 10, 1955 a lease agreement was entered into between Martin Weiss, as lessor, and Walter Young, as lessee, said lease being for a period of thirty years and covering certain real property located in the City of Dallas, Texas. Lessee Young erected certain improvements upon the property.

The lease in question is typewritten and contains fourteen numbered clauses. Two clauses of the lease are subject to construction in this suit. Clause three reads: 'that the lessee shall not assign this agreement or underlet the premises, or any part thereof (except as may be mentioned herein) without the consent of the lessor in writing (see #14.)' Clause number fourteen reads 'it is agreed and understood between lessor and lessee that lessee shall have the privilege of assigning or selling this lease to other persons or corporations subject to the conditions and covenants herein.'

Martin Weiss, the original lessor, died and his widow, Mrs. Martin Weiss and the Republic National Bank of Dallas became co-independent executors of his estate.

On November 23, 1960, following negotiations, appellant Young and appellees Luther De La Garza and J. E. Gonzales, Jr. consummated an agreement whereby appellant, by warranty deed, conveyed to appellees his leasehold interest and all improvements located on the lease property for an agreed price of $25,000. Appellees paid $4,000 cash and executed a note in the sum of $21,000 payable in installments, secured by a deed of trust on the improvements. It is without dispute in this record that no written consent of the original lessor was ever obtained by appellant prior to the making of the lease agreement with appellees. Appellees defaulted in the payment of installments on the note and this suit resulted. Appellees answered that appellant did not have authority to sell and assign to them the lease in question since appellant did not sucure the written consent of the lessor to make such assignment, and therefore there was no valid consikderation. Appellees also contended that appellant had represented to them that the had the authority from the lessor to assign the lease and that such representation was false, justifying cancellation and rescission.

Bernard Hirsch, who had been employed by Mrs. Martin Weiss to aid in the management of her property, testified that in June or July of 1960 appellant Young called him and told him about negotiations for the sale of the lease and asked if 'we would be willing to give him permission to assign the lease to these people.' Hirsch said that he, acting on behalf of the Weiss estate, never gave oral or written consent to the assignment of the lease. He also testified that, to his knowledge, Mrs. Weiss did not give he consent to the assignment. According to Hirsch neither he nor Mrs. Weiss knew that the assignment had been entered into between appellant and appellees in November 1960 until the early part of 1961 and that he, as agent for the Weiss estate had refused to recognize the appellees as tenants.

James P. Donovan, trust officer of the Republic National Bank of Dallas which was co-independent executor of the estate of Weiss, testified that he talked to appellant Young on the telephone in the early part of 1961 concerning the assignment of the lease and advised Yound at that time that any assignment would have to be with the written consent of the Weiss Estate. On February 24, 1961 Donovan wrote Young a letter in which he stated: 'Our interpretation of the lease agreement in respect to paragraphs numbered three and fourteen providing that while you have the right to assign or sell the lease agreement, you cannot do so without consent of the lessor in writing and then only subject to your being fully responsibel for the term, conditions, and covenants in the lease agreement.' Donovan related that he had a conversation with appellee Gonzales in February 1961 and refused to recognize Gonzales as tenant of the property. According to Donovan the Trust Department of the Bank had no prior knowledge of the attempted assignment to appellees prior to the time the Bank failed to recognize appellees as tenants in February 1961.

OPINION

One of the primary contentions of appellant, as reflected by his first three points of error, is that under the express provisions of the original lease agreement it was not required that lessee obtain written permission from the lessor in order to sublet the premises and therefore the trial court was in error in concluding, as a matter of law, that the lease did require written consent for assignment.

To properly construe the provisions of the lease agreement we must be ever mindful of certain basic and cardinal rules of construction. The first of such rules is that the intention of the parties be ascertained and given effect. As we pointed out in Davis v. Andrews, Tex.Civ.App., 361 S.W.2d 419, even this primary rule of construction must be immediately modified with the restriction that it is not the intention which the parties may have had, but failed to express in the instrument, but it is the intention which by said instrument they did express. The question is not what the parties meant to say but the meaning of what they did say. 19 Tex.Jur.2d Sec. 111, p. 401. Provisions in a contract which are apparently conflicting are to be reconciled and harmonized, if possible, by reasonable interpretation, and the contract as a whole given effect. To accomplish this the court will look to the entire instrument and not to isolated parts thereof. 10 Tex.Jur. Sec. 179, p. 311. In event of conflict between the clauses of an agreement whereby the meaning is obscured or rendered doubtful the expression in the clause first appearing will contorl. Witt v. Harlan, 66 Tex. 660, 2 S.W. 41; Benskin v. Barksdale, Tex.Com.App., 246 S.W. 360; Osburn v. Smart, Tex.Civ.App. wr. dism., 58 S.W.2d 1073.

From a reading of the entire lease agreement, what did the parties intend with reference to future assignments? By paragraph three the parties expressly stated that the lease could not be assigned without the consent of the lessor in writing. This provision is nothing more than the statutory prohibition of reassignment contained in Art. 5237, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. Such statute is made a part of every lease contract by operation of law. So, in order to change or modify the express and statutory prohibition of reassignment without written consent, the parties must necessarily clearly express their intent. Appellant argues that such was done in paragraph fourteen of the lease. However, an examination of this paragraph reveals that the parties merely stated therein that lessee shall have the privilege of assigning or selling the lease 'subject to the conditions and...