Court Opinion

ID: 9832722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:08:16.588339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:50.791358
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellants in their motion for rehearing reassert the. propositions relied on in their brief, and insist that this court committed error in holding in the original opinion that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the finding of the jury that the property in question was not listed with the plaintiffs for sale at the time that negotiations were begun by Lemmon for the sale of the property to Jar-rott brothers and Mrs. Vickers, because the evidence is undisputed that, after the expiration of the 60 days which appellees contended was the time the listing contract was to continue, Lemmon and the appellants continued a course of correspondence with reference to' the sale o’f the lands and assert:
“That, if the first contract limiting the employment to 60 days bad never been made between appellants and Lemmon, yet with the correspondence that passed .between them, and with the knowledge that Lemmon had, that these appellants were claiming to have a contract to sell the land, a contract would be implied, regardless of the 60-day contract that they first entered into.”
It will be noted that appellants did not plead any implied contract, but relied in their pleadings solely on an express contract. It is well settled that, if a plaintiff declares on an express contract, he cannot recover on an implied contract. Thornton v. Moody (Tex. Civ. App.) 24 S. W. 331; Krohn v. Heyn (Tex. Civ. App.) 14 S. W. 130; Braly v. Barnett, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 433, 78 S. W. 965; Wisbey v. Boyce (Tex. Civ. App.) 27 S. W. 590.
It will also be observed that appellants pleaded neither waiver nor estoppel, and in *179the absence of such pleading, neither can be relied on. Scarbrough v. Alcorn, 74 Tex. 358, 12 S. W. 72; Hollifield v. Landrum, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 187, 71 S. W. 979, and cases cited.
The motion is therefore overruled.