Court Opinion

ID: 9828250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:14:19.899038+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:45.555369
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
 The motion for rehearing is devoted principally to an attack on our holding that assignments 1 and 16 are too general to require consideration. It has always been held that a complaint of the verdict of the jury or judgment of the court that it is unsupported by the evidence, or is against the preponderance of the evidence, or is contrary to the evidence, is too general to constitute a dis'tinct specification of error within the meaning of the statute and rules of procedure. We might cite authorities almost without number to sustain this proposition, but refer to only a few decisions of the Supreme Court directly in point. Harvey v. Ogilvie, 66 Tex. 185, 18 S. W. 448; Ackerman v. Huff, 71 Tex. 317, 9 S. W. 236; Houston v. Blythe, 71 Tex. 719, 10 S. W. 520; Macey v. Wilson (Tex. Sup.) 12 S. W. 282. Nor do we think that the Legislature intended, by the change in article 1612 of the Revised Statutes; as effected by the amendment thereof in 1913 (Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 1612), to change the rule as to the character of assignments we have under consideration. It is true that there is a tendency in recent decisions to be very liberal in determining the sufficiency of assignments. Harlington Land & Water Co. v. Houston Motor Car Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 209 S. W. 146; Morrison v. Neely (Tex. Com. App.) 231 S. W. 730. In the case first cited the Commission of Appeals said that—
“Where the brief, taken as a whole, reasonably presents the error sought to be corrected, we believe it more in accord with justice to give it consideration.” I
And thé Fort Worth court has recently held under this line of decisions it was required to consider assignments equally as general as those presented in this case. Rone v. Marti (Tex. Civ. App.) 244 S. W. 640. A distinction might be drawn between the decisions of the two cases by the Commission of Appeals first cited and this case, and we are not prepared to agree that under these decisions we are required to consider the assignments under consideration. The intimation that the sufficiency of assignments may be aided by the propositions and statements made in the brief so as to require a consideration of assignments otherwise defective does not seem to us to be in accord with previous decisions of the Supreme Court. Jackson v. Cassidy, 68 Tex. 282, 4 S. W. 541; Cammack v. Rogers, 96 Tex. 457, 73 S. W. 796.
However, we have authority in our discretion to consider questions raised under assignments that do not comply with the rules. Cammack v. Rogers, 96 Tex. 457, 73 S. W. 795. The trial in this case was before the court without a jury; no motion for new trial was filed or required to be filed; if the assignments referred to had pointed out with particularity the facts relied on to show that the judgment was not sustained by the evidence, nothing could have been done to change the status of the case. The question is clearly raised in the brief under a heading styled, “Point No. 2,” and the appellees have the same opportunity of presenting their reply thereto that they would have had if the assignments had been as specific as the brief now is. These circumstances may properly be taken into consideration in determining the exercise of our discretion and have ¡convinced us that we should consider the question as if properly presented.
There was no evidence of any express agreement to pay a commission, and appel-lees must rely on the letter of April 6, 1919, quoted in our opinion, to establish the allegations of their petition that there was an agreement to pay the brokers' as commission any excess of the sale price over $1,000 per acre. The listing of land at a net price to the owner does not imply an agreement to pay the excess to the broker as commission. Sandifer v. Foard County, 63 Tex. Civ. App. 651, 134 S. W. 823; Id., 105 Tex. 420, 151 S. W. 523; Allen v. Clopton (Tex. Civ. App.) 135 S. W. 242; Louva v. Worden, 30 N. D. 401, 152 N. W. 690; 9 C. J. 581. The plaintiffs, therefore, failed to sustain the allegations of their petition, and we hold that this point is well taken.
The motion for rehearing will be granted, and the judgment reversed and remanded.