Court Opinion

ID: 9830391
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:10:08.047029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:20.895243
License: Public Domain

On Motions, for Rehearing.
Upon consideration of appellants’ motion for rehearing and a re-examination of the record, we have reached the conclusion that the evidence conclusively shows that neither 'Mrs. Baldwin nor the appellants under their contract of purchase and sale contemplated the purchase of less than the entire tract of land, and neither of them were willing to consummate the contract for only Mrs. Cage’s interest in the land.
Upon this state of facts the only ground upon which a portion of the judgment was remanded for a new trial by our main opinion is untenable, and appellants’ motion for rehearing as to that portion of our judgment must be granted.
After fully considering appellees’ motion for rehearing, we feel constrained to adhere to the conclusions expressed in our former opinion that Mrs. Cage was not authorized to make a contract binding upon her separate estate to pay appellees’ commission for obtaining a purchaser ready, willing, and able to buy the interest of her minor son in the property, and appellees knowing of the interest at the time their contract for procuring a purchaser was made, and being charged with knowledge of Mrs. Cage’s want of authority to make a contract binding upon her *871separate estate to pay appellees a commission for obtaining such purchaser, cannot recover such commission. Berg v. San Antonio Street Ry. Co., 17 Tex. Civ. App. 291, 42 S. W. 647, 43 S. W. 929; Id., 49 S. W. 921; Montgomery v. Arnsler, 57 Tex. Civ. App. 216, 122 S. W. 307; Willson v. Crawford, 61 Tex. Civ. App. 580, 130 S. W. 227; Perkins v. Camozze (Tex. Civ. App.) 246 S. W. 735; Realty Co. v. Small (Tex. Civ. App.) 251 S. W. 306; Carter v. Harrell & Walker, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 268, 118 S. W. 1139.
It follows that appellees’ motion for rehearing must be overruled.
Our judgment reversing the judgment below in part will be set aside, and the judgment of the trial court reversed and rendered in favor of appellants in its entirety, and it has been so ordered.