Court Opinion

ID: 9830646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:21:04.396907+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:25.196107
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[7] Appellee says this court erred in reversing this case, because appellant did not except to the conclusions of fact filed by the trial court. In this case, both a statement of facts and conclusions of fact by the court were filed, and by a sufficient assignment of errors, followed by appropriate propositions, appellant raises the question as to sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment of the court and urges the conduct of appellee as .an estoppel.
The sixth .assignment of error is as follows: “The court erred in rendering judgment in favor of plaintiff, because the undisputed testimony shows that plaintiff asserted title to the property and ownership thereof, and was trying to make sale of said property a long time after it was his duty to have rejected said property under his written contracts of sale.” The proposition is as follows: “Plaintiff was informed on April 9, 1910, that the title to the property was a limitation title, and he did not finally reject the title until May 28, 1910, and during the time between April 9th and May 28th he was in possession of the property, and asserting ownership, and attempting to sell the property, and thereby speculating upon the situation; and having so delayed, and having so asserted ownership, and having so speculated upon the situation, he could not thereafter reject the property and refuse to consummate the contract of purchase.’.’ In the case of Hahl v. Kellogg, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 639, 94 S. W. 391, Judge Neill writing, it was said: “It is contended in this motion that, because no exception was taken by defendant in error to the conclusions of law and fact, nor to the judgment of the court .below, we could not consider defendant’s cross-assignment of error, which complains that the court erred in not rendering judgment in his favor for $7,500 for the reason that Hahl, as an agent, was guilty of such fraud, gross misconduct, and bad faith to •his principal as to deprive him of the right to compensation for his services. It is settled by an unbroken line of. authorities that it is not necessary to take exceptions to findings of law and facts, when there is a statement of facts in the record, in order to review them on appeal. Smith v. Abadie (Tex. Civ. App.) 67 S. W. 1077; Brenton & McKay v. Peck [39 Tex. Civ. App. 224] 87 S. W. 903.” This doctrine is amply supported. Thompson v. State, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 370, 56 S. W. 603; Connellee v. Roberts, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 363, 23 S. W. 187; Tudor v. Hodges, 71 Tex. 392, 9 S. W. 443; Voight v. Mackle, 71 Tex. 78, 8 S. W. 623.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.