Court Opinion

ID: 9641724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:39:09.46224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:39.375236
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
 Under appellant’s citation of cases, e.g., Tolbert v. Standard Accident Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 218 S.W.2d 488, reversed on other grounds, Tex., 223 S.W.2d 617, defendant, although not actually sign*710ing the two indemnity contracts, was bound thereby as a third-party beneficiary. The parol evidence rule was therefore applicable to an oral understanding between Howard, Soder and plaintiff that, as between themselves and defendant Company, such instrument would be limited to the Daingerfield job; and properly excluded by the trial court upon objection. In support of defendant’s judgment, however, we again point to plaintiff’s own admission that he was promised nothing in connection with signing the indemnities in question; executing them in furtherance of the interest of his own project, Trinity Engineer Builders. Thereby eliminated, at least by inference, was any reliance upon the corporate resolution of June 12, 1952.
The original opinion is corrected as here-inabove indicated. Otherwise the motion for rehearing is overruled.