Case Name: C. S. Pickrell and The Elite Confectionery Company of El Paso v. Mrs. C. N. Buckler and W. T. Grant Company
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1927-06-04
Citations: 116 Tex. 567
Docket Number: Application No. 15339
Parties: C. S. Pickrell and The Elite Confectionery Company of El Paso v. Mrs. C. N. Buckler and W. T. Grant Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 116
Pages: 567–568

Head Matter:
C. S. Pickrell and The Elite Confectionery Company of El Paso v. Mrs. C. N. Buckler and W. T. Grant Company.
Application No. 15339.
Decided June 4, 1927.
(296 S. W., 1062).
S. N. Russell and Goggin, Hunter & Brown, for plaintiff in error.
If upon a fair, reasonable construction giving to all ambiguities the reasonable interpretation most favorable to the pleading, there appear in it sufficient facts to show a legal right in the pleader, the general demurrer should be overruled. Town’s Pleading, second edition, p. 531; Williams v. Warnell, 28 Texas, 610; Erie Telegraph etc. v. Grimes, 82 Texas, 89; Williams v. Williams, 28 Texas, 610.
A general demurrer does not reach a mere informality of averment, and any difficulty which might have been cured if pointed out by a special exception is not reached by a general demurrer. Harry v. Pinckney, 55 S. W., 38.
The sufficiency of the petition and of the cause of action asserted is often dependent upon the construction placed upon the contract by the parties themselves. The contract should be construed in the light of the surrounding circumstances at the time it was entered into. The verbal negotiations of the parties leading up to the contract may be looked to to make clear the intent, purposes, and rights of the parties in the matter of its execution. North v. Atlas Brick Co., 281 S. W., 608; DeFriest v. Brad ley, 78 N. E., 467 (Mass.). On general demurrer the court necessarily cannot be advised as to such matters, but can only be advised as to this after hearing the evidence.
The rule of law giving to the courts the right to determine in such cases the reasonable rental value, entered into the contract itself became a part of it and defined and regulated the right of the parties. Smith v. Butcher, 223 S. W., 166; Texas City Transport Co. v. Winters, 224 S. W., 1087; Mix v. Board of Commissioners, 112 Pac., 215, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 534.
Turney, Burges, Cwlwall, Holliday & Pollard, for Mrs. Buckler.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
We are not inclined to the view that the covenant to renew in the original lease was void for uncertainity.
We conclude, however, that under the writings executed by the parties the plaintiffs in error had no right or option to renew the lease more than the one time.
The Court of Civil Appeals having therefore entered the correct judgment, the writ of error will be refused, regardlesss of our failure to concur in all that is said in the opinion.