Court Opinion

ID: 9832426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:54:12.02795+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:46.709885
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Defendant in error contends that by the terms of the contract the title to the cattle was vested in plaintiffs in error at the time they refused to further perform their obligations under the contract, and that therefore our decision is in direct conflict with the opinion of this court in the case of Whitsett v. Garney, 124 S. W. 443.
We conclude that the contract does not express an intention that the title to the cattle should pass prior to their reaching Eagle Pass; that the language is such as to admit of a doubt as to the intention, to say the least; that the construction placed thereon by the parties as disclosed by the evidence and defendant in error’s pleading was that the title was not to pass until the cattle reached Eagle Pass, and were formally delivered .by defendant in error; that such construction should control us in determining the questions presented; and that therefore no conflict exists between our decision and that rendered in Whitsett v. Carney. The case cannot be decided by the rule applicable to the attempted satisfaction of a liquidated .demand by part payment thereof under an agreement that such part payment is to be received in full satisfaction of the debt.
We do not agree with plaintiffs in error that the suit is one for damages for fraud. Barreda sought to recover upon the original contract, presenting two theories, one that he had agreed to a modification to take effect *870provided a certain event occurred, which event he alleged had not occurred, hut that he had been led by fraud to believe it had occurred, and the other that there was no consideration for any modification, and no change had taken place which would make the contract so burdensome upon appellants as to support an agreement modifying the original contract.
The plaintiffs in error denied Barreda’s allegations, and pleaded that they had refused to perform the original contract, stating their reasons for such act, and that thereupon Barreda had agreed to a change in price, and that the new agreement had been fully performed by both parties. They failed to plead and prove any consideration for the modification, and relied solely upon the theory that, when a contract in which there has been a change made as to a material clause is fully performed, the parties are bound, and cannot inquire into the consideration.
Barreda did not answer plaintiffs in error’s plea with any charge that, if a modification such as was pleaded was actually made, it was induced by mistake or fraud ; so we cannot dispose of the case upon any such theory, no matter what conclusion we were to arrive at from the evidence. The testimony of Barreda and plaintiffs in error is practically in accord to the effect that the change was proposed and agreed to because of the information to the effect, that a duty of 10 pesos would • be charged. In fact, no duty whatever was charged by the Huerta government. The testimony of the broker tends to show that probably one of the appellants knew the day before the cattle were driven across the Rio Grande that probably no duty would be charged. No such information reached defendant in error, or he would not have accepted the offer made by plaintiffs in error.
We are - still of the opinion that the defendant in error was not entitled to a peremptory instruction upon the case made by the pleadings and evidence.
The motion is therefore overruled.