Court Opinion

ID: 9830809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:30:58.693778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:27.163674
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee complains because we stated in our opinion that “the evidence shows that these improvements were made with neither the consent or knowledge of Wagner.” The evidence-does show that Wagner passed by the field on two occasions when these improvements were in the process of being made. The fact that'he may have noticed these improvements would not be sufficient to remove this contract from the operation of the provisions of the statute of frauds, Art. 3995, Vernon’s Ann. Civ.Stats. He must have consented to the placing of such improvements on the land, or he must have had su'ch knowledge as would amount to an acquiescence therein.
Appellee also criticizes our statement: “Thus Maloy had a nice profit from the land even after deducting the $1,000.00 for permanent improvements” as being unsupported by the evidence. The evidence does show that appellee had a gross profit of some $6,300.00 to $6,900.00. He did not see fit to offer any evidence as to how much of this gross profit was net profit, if any. Appellee was seeking specific performance of an oral lease contract of land for a period of three years. The burden of proof was upon him to show that there were reasons why it would be a fraud upon him not to enforce this otherwise unenforciblc contract. This burden he failed to discharge, by showing there was no net profit made upon the land, although the gross profit was more than $6,000.00.
The motion for a rehearing has been carefully considered and is in all things overruled.