Case Name: BRITAIN v. RICE
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1918-04-18
Citations: 204 S.W. 254
Docket Number: No. 838
Parties: BRITAIN v. RICE.
Judges: On rehearing Justice WALTHALL did not sit, being absent on committee of judges assisting the Supreme Court.
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 204
Pages: 254–256

Head Matter:
BRITAIN v. RICE.
(No. 838.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.
April 18, 1918.
On Rehearing, May 16, 1918.)
1. Witnesses @==>330(3)—Cross-Examination —Impeachment—Materiality. .
In broker’s action for commission for sale of land, where pleadings raised an issue as to the terms and conditions of the sale, cross-examination of principal as to terms of sale was not objectionable as tending to impeach witness on collateral matter.
2. Bbokers <§=>85(6)—Actions—Evidence-Admissibility.
In action for commission by real estate broker, evidence that principal, while sale was pending, inquired of a witness whether he would be liable for commission if, having listed land for cash, he transferred it in a trade or for notes, held admissible.
3. Bbokees <@=>84(1) — Actions — Burden op Peoof.
In broker’s action for commission for sal® of land, the burden of proving the commission agreed upon is upon the broker.
On Rehearing.
4. Bbokeks @=>86(6) — Actions—Evidence-Sufficiency.
In action for commission by real estate broker, evidence held to show that broker agreed to a reduction in the amount of commission in consideration of principal taking an automobile as part of the purchase price in the sale of land listed to be sold on other terms.
5. Brokers <@=>71 — Compensation—Sale by Owner on Different Terms.
Where principal takes an automobile as part consideration in the sale of land under an agreement with broker that commission was to be only $50 instead of $300, the commission agreed upon in the event of a sale of the property under terms listed, broker will be held to such agreement, and cannot recover commission originally agreed on.
6. Brokers <@=>71 — Amount—“Cash.”
Where broker consented to a reduction in the amount of commission to $50 “cash” upon principal’s agreement to sell land on different terms than those listed, the word “cash” did not indicate intention that the money was to be paid immediately and before trade was closed, but merely to show amount was to be paid in money, and not other things of value.
[Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Cash.]
Appeal from Coryell County Court; H. E. Bell, Judge.
Action by W. E. Rice against J. M. Britain. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
On rehearing judgment reduced to $50.
See, also, 183 S. W. 84.
McClellan & McClellan, of Gatesville, for appellant. Blears & Wtatkins, of Gatesville, for appellee.

Opinion:
WALTHADD, J.
In this case W. E. Rice sues J. M. Britain to recover the sum of $300, the amount alleged to be due as commission on the sale of land. The jury found in favor of Rice, the judgment was so entered, and Britain appeals.
The land was to be sold for $6,000, a part for cash and part on time, in which event Rice was to receive as commission the sum of $300. Rice found the purchaser, and the sale was eventually made. Britain pleaded general denial, and makes the further contention that after listing the land with Rice, and after the purchaser had been found, but before the sale had been closed, he communicated to Rice the offer made by the purchaser and told him that he could not afford to close the deal on the terms offered if he must pay to Rice the commission of $300, but that he would accept the offer if Rice would accept $50 in cash for his commission, that sum to be paid when the trade was closed.
Rice's contention is that before the trade was closed, Britain offered him the sum of $50 if he (Rice) would get out of the trade; that he offered to accept $50 in cash and get out of the trade, which sum Britain refused to pay ; that he did not agree to accept said, sum as his commission when said deal was closed, but was conditioned solely upon his getting out of the trade before any kind of contract of sale was consummated; that he then informed Britain, and thereafter informed him before the sale was consummated, that in the event of a sale he (Britain) would owe him a commission of $300.
Appellant presents four assignments of error: Insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict; error in requiring Britain to testify on cross-examination as to the terms and conditions of the sale of the land, claiming that such testimony was immaterial, irrelevant, and incompetent, and tended to impeach and discredit witness by proof of a collateral and immaterial issue; error in permitting a witness to testify that before the sale was perfected Britain asked the witness whether he would be liable for commission where he had listed the land for sale for cash and a purchaser had been procured who had offered the price in trade or notes, and if under such circumstances a commission would be due, whether he would have to pay such commission if he did not close the sale within the time allotted to procure a purchaser, claiming such evidence to be immaterial and prejudicial, as showing bad faith, an attempt to impeach appellant by proof on an immaterial fact and foreign to the case, and because appellant did not seek to avoid payment on the ground that a purchaser had not been found on terms, or within the time authorized; error in refusing a special charge to find for appellant for the sum of $50, and no more.
The court was not in error in any of the matters pointed out in the assignments. The pleadings tender issues showing a dispute between appellant and appellee as to the terms of the contract and the amount to be paid and the good faith of appellant in executing the two deeds to the purchaser, and the evidence tends to throw light on the matters in controversy. The burden was on the appellee to show that he was entitled to a commission of $300, rather than the sum of $50, for getting out of the trade. The evidence was sufficient to support appellee's contentions. The assignments are overruled.
The case is affirmed.
tg^For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
ffi=>Iior other cases see same topic and KEY-NXJMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes