Case Name: SARGENT et al. v. BARNES
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-03-26
Citations: 159 S.W. 366
Docket Number: 
Parties: SARGENT et al. v. BARNES.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 159
Pages: 366–375

Head Matter:
SARGENT et al. v. BARNES.
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.
March 26, 1913.
On Motion for Rehearing, June 25, 1913.)
1. Appeal and Error (§ 743 ) — Assignments oe Error — Reference to Record.
Supreme Court Rule 25 (142 S. W. vii), requiring the assignments of error to refer to that portion of the motion for new trial in which the error is complained of, does not apply to assignments of error to the charges given or refused by the court.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2999, 3011; Dec. Dig. § 743. ]
2. Principal and Agent (§ 123 ) — Authority oe Agent — Sufficiency of Evidence.
In an action to cancel a contract for the sale of land on the ground of fraudulent representations, evidence held sufficient to show that the one who made the misrepresentations was expressly authorized by the manager of the land to make the sale, and that the owners knew of such authorization and acquiesced therein.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Principal and Agent, Cent. Dig. §§ 420-429; Dec. Dig. § 123. ]
3. Principal and Agent (§ 14 ) — Liability to Third Persons — Implied Authority-Sale of Land.
Where the owners of land knew that an agent was endeavoring to sell it and were present on the property during the several days that the negotiation was being carried on, they will be held to have acquiesced in the agency if they made no objection thereto, since, so far as the rights of third persons are concerned, the authority of an agent will be presumed where one has held another out as his agent or knowingly permitted him to act as such.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Principal and Agent, Cent. Dig. §§ 26-33; Dec. Dig. § 14. ]
4. Principal and Agent (§ 23 ) — Liability to Third Persons — Sufficiency of Evidence-Circumstantial Evidence.
Agency may be established by circumstantial evidence.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Principal and Agent, Cent. Dig. § 41; Dec. Dig. § 23. ]
5. Principal and Agent (§ 171 ) — Liability to Third Persons — Implied Ratification —Attempt to Enforce Contract.
Where a purchaser, who had given a note as liquidated damages to bind a contract for the sale of land, notified the owners that he refused to carry out the contract because of misrepresentations of the agent who negotiated the sale, the act of the owners in thereafter bringing suit upon the note was a ratification of the acts of the agent.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Principal and Agent, Cent. Dig. §§ 644-655; Dec. Dig. § 171. ]
6. Principal and Agent (§ 158 ) — Liability to Third Persons — Fraud of Agent.
The owners of land are liable for any fraudulent representations made by their agent whereby a purchaser was induced to buy the land whether they had any knowledge of the representations or not.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Principal and Agent, Cent. Dig. §§ 589-598 ; Dec. Dig. §*
7. Principal and Agent (§ 22 ) — Liability to Third Person — Evidence of Agency— Declarations of Agent.
Agency cannot be established by the declarations of the agent.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Principal and Agent, Cent. Dig. § 40; Dec. Dig. § 22. ]
8. Principal and Agent (§ 22 ) — Liability to Third Persons — Evidence — Declaration of Agent.
The acts and statements 1 of an alleged agent, made while negotiations are pending for the sale of land, are admissible, in an action to rescind the contract for the agent’s fraud in connection with direct testimony of the acts and statements of the principal and direct testimony establishing agency, especially where the principals were present during the progress of negotiations.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Principal and Agent, Cent. Dig. § 40; Dec. Dig. § 22. ]
9. Principal and Agent (§ 22 ) — Liability to Third Persons — Evidence—Unsigned Memorandum.
In an action to set aside a contract for the sale of land for fraud of the agent who negotiated the sale, a memorandum of sale prepared by the agent but which was never signed was admissible, over the objection that there was a subsequent written contract entered into between the parties, where it tended to show the agency and corroborated the testimony of the purchaser.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Principal and Agent, Cent. Dig. § 40; Dec. Dig. § 22. ]
10. Appeal and Error (§ 1040 ) — Harmless Error — Overruling Exceptions to Petition.
Where the evidence warrants the cancellation of a written contract for the sale of land on the ground of fraudulent representations, rulings of the court on exceptions to the petition because the facts to set up a verbal contract for the sale of land at variance with the written contract are immaterial, and error therein is harmless.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4089-4105; Dec. Dig. § 1040. ]
11. Evidence (§ 185 ) — Secondary Evidence —Contents oe Better — Notice to Produce Originad.
Where a purchaser of land kept no copy of a letter which he wrote to the agent of the vendors, rescinding the contract on account of the fraud of their agent, and had given the vendors notice to produce the letter, he had a right thereafter to testify as to its contents.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other eases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 642-660; Dec. Dig. § 185. ]
12. Arpead and Error (§ 1050 ) — Harmdess Error — Admissibidity oe Evidence — Deo-DARATIONS OE AGENT.
The admission of the letter written to the agent and his reply thereto confirming the representations which he had previously made were not prejudicial to the owner where the transaction had not been closed and the agent was still interested therein.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 1068, 1069, 4153-4157, 4166; Dec. Dig. § 1050. ]
13. Evidence (§ 553 ) — Opinion Evidence— Hypotiieticad Question — Requisites.
A hypothetical question must embrace, and be based upon, the facts in evidence relating thereto.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 2369-2374; Dec. Dig. § 553. ]
14. Vendor and Pürchaser (§ 36 ) — Varidity oe Contract — Misrepresentations as to Quadity.
Where a purchaser had contracted for first-class farming land that would not overflow, he had a right to refuse to take overflow lands, no matter what they might produce.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Vendor and Purchaser, Cent. Dig. §§ 40, 52, 53; Dec. Dig. § 36. ]
15. Appear and Error (§ 1066 ) — Harmdess Error — Instructions — Appdicabidity to Issues.
In an action to rescind a contract for the purchase of land on account of fraud of the agents who negotiated the sale, where the plaintiff could not recover without showing that the persons making the representations were agents of the owners and had made material misrepresentations as to the nature of the land, it was immaterial that .the court charged as to a conspiracy to make a sale of the land, so that any error therein was harmless.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 4220; Dec. Dig. § 1066. ]
Appeal from District Court, Travis County; Chas. A. Wilcox, Judge.
Action by J. M. Barnes against Jane Sargent and others. Judgment for the plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
Affirmed on rehearing.
Gaines & Corbett, of Bay City, and W. B. Garrett, of Austin, for appellants. Sam D. Snodgrass, of Temple, and L. A. Dale, of El Paso, for appellee.
For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes-

Opinion:
RICE, J.
The parties hereto on the 28th of June, 1911, entered into a written contract whereby the appellants bound themselves to convey by warranty deed to appellee 12,000 acres of land in Matagorda county, Tex., in consideration of the payment by him to them on the 1st of December, 1911, of $62,000 cash and the execution of his five vendor's lien notes of same date, each for the sum of $26,000, payable on the 1st days of December, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915, and 1916, respectively, bearing interest and providing for attorney's fees. Appellee likewise executed to appellants his note for $12,000, payable December 1,- 1911, secured by deed of trust on seven sections of land in Crosby county, Tex., which note, as evidenced by its recitals, was given by him as consideration for said contract, and the depositing of said deed in escrow, and the making of survey, preparation of abstracts, and other expenses incurred and to be incurred by appellants; said contract providing that all of said papers were to be deposited in escrow with the Bay City Bank & Trust Company, to be delivered by it to the respective parties thereto upon certain conditions therein set forth, not necessary to be here stated.
It is claimed by appellee that the agents of appellant fraudulently represented said land to be good farming land; that only about 2,000 or 3,000 acres thereof would overflow during excessive Gulf storms, whereas only about 1,000 acres thereof were suitable for farming, and the larger part thereof was subject to overflow, by reason of which said land was of far less value than he agreed to pay therefor; and this suit was brought by him on the 12th of September, 1911, in the district court of Crosby county, Tex., against appellants, seeking to cancel, on the ground of fraud, said written contract, as well as each of said notes and the deed of trust on said Crosby county lands.
Appellants answered by special exceptions, general and special denials. On the 6th of December thereafter appellants instituted suit against appellee in the district court of Matagorda county to enforce the collection of said $12,000 note and to foreclose said deed of trust given to secure same. Ap-pellee answered setting -up the fraud as above referred to, and by cross-action praying for cancellation of said note and deed of trust. By agreement of all the parties, the suits in Crosby and Matagorda counties were consolidated and transferred to the district court of Travis county, where the same was tried before a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment May 4, 1912, in favor of ap-pellee, canceling said contract, as well as all of said notes and the deed of trust, and denying appellants any recovery in their suit, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
Appellants* brief contains 132 pages. There are 50 assignments of error, covering 30 pages of the transcript, 32 of which are copied in appellants' brief and insisted upon as grounds for reversal. The motion for new trial is voluminous, covering 20 pages of the transcript, with 49 separate and distinct paragraphs, and was filed in the trial court May 25, 1912; the assignments of error being filed August 31, 1912.
Appellee, by his counsel at the hearing, insisted that appellants' brief should not be considered by ns for tbe reason that it did not conform to rules 24 and 25 for the government of this court, as amended by the Supreme Court January 24, 1912. See 142 S. W. vii. The substance of rule 24 is that no question shall be considered on appeal that was not presented in the court below on motion for new trial, and that the assignment of error must distinctly specify the grounds relied upon. Rule 25, among other things, in setting forth what constitutes a distinct specification of error, requires the assignment to refer to that portion of the motion for new trial in which the error is complained of.
It has recently been held by us in the case of Tinsley v. Bottom, in an opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Key, handed down March 19, 1913, and not yet published, that a failure to conform to these rules will be sufficient ground for disregarding an assignment of error, and this irrespective of whether or not objection is made thereto by the opposite party. It is true in that case that the rules were not enforced, chiefly on the ground that the same, when the assignments of errors were filed, had not been officially published, and for the further reason that the motion for new trial complained only of the action of the court below in one particular, which was the only reason assigned for reversal. In the instant case the trial occurred in the latter part of May, 1912, and the assignments of error were not filed until the 31st of August thereafter, seven months after the adoption of said rules, and at least four months after 142 Southwestern Reporter containing same reached the hands of the profession; and the brief, as we have seen, presents many assignments of error. So that no such reasons exist here as obtained in that case for excusing a failure to conform to said rules. See, also, St. L. S. W. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Ledbetter, 153 S. W. 647, where it was held, upon objection, that a failure to comply with these rules constituted a waiver of the assignments and necessitated an affirmance of the case.
We have carefully examined the brief of counsel and each of the assignments copied therein and find no reference to the motion for new trial in the lower court nor to any paragraph of said motion; the same being wholly ignored. It appears at once how important the observance of these rules is for the orderly dispatch of business in this court. Without such reference in the assignment to that portion of the motion for new trial in which the error is complained of, it would be necessary, in the proper consideration of this case, for the court to review the entire motion (which we are not expected or called upon to do) in order to ascertain whether or not the question complained of was properly brought to the attention of the trial court, without which it could not be regarded as sufficient ground up,on which to predicate the assignment; but the error should be considered as waived under rule 24, unless so fundamental that the court would act upon it without an assignment. But where, as here, the opposite side is insisting that the assignments should be disregarded on account of failure to comply therewith, it becomes our duty to disregard the said assignments.
No fundamental error appearing upon the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.