Court Opinion

ID: 9832378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:52:13.400289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:46.238829
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
[2] Appellees in their motion for rehearing contend that we were in error in stating that they claimed that appellant should not recover because he did not state the value of his services, therefore the issue of quantum meruit should not have been presented to the jury.
It is admitted that the writer of the opin*430ion committed error in tliat respect. But in reconsidering tliis matter this court is of the opinion:
That appellees “did contend, and now so contend, that appellant’s lawyer in their pleadings sought a recovery on quantum meruit, hut that the plaintiff repudiated the quantum meruit theory, and by his testimony abandons it by continually saying that he relied on the contract; that he had never performed any services except under and by virtue of the contract made with appellees at Ulano, Tex.”
The writer did not intend to misquote ap-pellees’ contention, and while he was wrong in his statement, the court thinks error does not affect the result of the decision made; conceding that the testimony was sufficient for the jury to find against Guyer on his claim of a contract and his insistence that he was only claiming by virtue of that contract, still, under his pleadings on which he went to trial, and the evidence adduced on the trial, he was entitled to the submission of a qüantum meruit. If there was no contract entered into, which the jury evidently believed, but if Guyer believed there was a contract, and he did render valuable services for appellees, would the fact that he only claimed by virtue of the contract preclude him absolutely from a recovery on a quantum meruit? We think not. So an issue was raised which could only be settled by the jury. The court did not see proper to submit this issue, and for this reason the motion for rehearing is overruled.