Court Opinion

ID: 9832587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:01:14.979704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:48.509612
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
It is insisted by the appellees that any error in sustaining the special demurrer to a part of appellant’s answer, as determined in the original opinion, should be held as harmless error not requiring a reversal of the judgment, because the appellees recovered upon the written contract pleaded and established by the evidence beyond controversy. The question now presented was not without notice or consideration by us in our former deliberation upon the appeal. As the briefs, though, made no mention of this question, we were at the time inclined to construe the judgment, as stated in the former opinion, as a judgment against J. L. Cannon on the special assessment certificate,” rather than upon the written contract signed by appellant. It being made clear now that the ease as actually tried and the judgment as finally rendered was upon liability under the written contract, the judgment should be, we think, affirmed, instead of reversed and remanded, upon the grounds stated by appellees in this motion.
The written contract signed by appellant and his wife reads as follows:
“The State of Texas, County of Hopkins.
“We, J. L. Cannon and Ms wife, Mary D. Cannon, owners of the following described property: One lot in the city of Sulphur Springs, on the south side of College St. in the M. A. Bowlin survey, being lot No. 19, block *531No. 54, more fully described in a deed from J. E. Thomas to J. L. Cannon on Jan. 4, 1893, and recorded in yol. 23, page 404, Hopkins county, Texas, in consideration of the improvements including grading, excavation, paving and curbing street or roadway 27 feet wide to be made by virtue of a resolution heretofore adopted by the commission of the city of Sul-phur Springs, Texas, and the contract and specifications heretofore adopted by said commission upon the completion of said improvements in front of the property and premises above .described and the accep'tance thereof by the city, promise to pay, Cobb. & Gregory, a firm composed of O. E. Cobb and J. A. Gregory, or their assigns, whatever sum shall be ascertained to be pro rata share of the cost of said improvements in front of said premises according to the front-foot rule under the terms of said resolution and contract and the charter of said city, not to exceed the sum of $288.10, but if the frontage of said premises shall finally exceed the amount herein stated, then the pro rata cost of improvements of said excess shall be paid for to said Cobb & Gregory, at the rate of $1.3608 per front-foot for such excess.
“The amount due hereunder shall be paid as follows, to wit: All cash at the option of the undersigned, or one-third thereof 30 days after said improvements have been completed in, front of said property and accepted by said city, the balance in two equal installments on or before one and two years after such acceptance, with interest on said installments from date of such acceptance at the rate of 8 per centum per annum, payable annually, together with 10 per cent; attorney’s fees thereon if not paid at maturity and placed in the hands of an attorney for collection, or suit is brought thereon, and, if default is made in the payment of any installment of principal or interest hereunder when due, then, at the option of said Cobb & Gregory, or other legal holder hereof, the whole amount unpaid shall at once become due and payable.
“And in consideration of said improvements to and upon said* premises and the fact that thereby the value of said property will be enhanced in excess of the cost of such improvements, we, the undersigned, do hereby expressly confess, admit, give, and grant unto the said Cobb & Gregory, the contractors who are to furnish the labor and material with which to construct said improvements, and their assigns, the mechanic’s, builder’s, contractor’s and materialman’s lien upon said premises to secure the full payment of the indebtedness herein mentioned; and as further security to said Cobb & Gregory and as an inducement for them to perform said work and furnish the labor and material necessary thereto, the undersigned by these presents grants, bargains, sells and conveys unto said Cobb & Gregory the above-described land, who shall have and hold the same with all and singular the here-ditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or appertaining, in trust, for the purpose of further securing the payment of the debt above described, and when said debt shall have been paid as aforesaid, then these presents shall be without force and effect.
“And we do hereby consent that the commission of said city may levy a special assessment against said property for the amount ascertained, to be the proportionate share chargeable against the same, and may issue to said Cobb & Gregory an assignable certificate for such amount payable in the manner above specified.
“It is expressly understood that this obligation is not conditioned upon the improvement of said street before all property abutting thereon, but such improvement may be omitted in front of the property of such owner or owners abutting thereon who decline to make satisfactory arrangements with the said Cobb & Gregory for the payment of his, or their, part of the cost of the same, and this obligation shall be deemed only cumulative and independent of such proceedings of the commission hereinbefore mentioned and of such provisions as the commission shall make for the pro rata cost of such improvements against the abutting property or the owners thereof.
“If such special assessment be levied upon the above-described property and the certificate above mentioned is issued therefor by said city, then any payments made on such certificate shall be apportioned as credit hereon, and shall be indorsed hereon upon request. And consent is also given that said commission may make any change or changes it may deem necessary or proper in the plans and specifications for paving the street railway track upon said street, if any, and any such change or changes shall, in no way, affect legality of any assessment or liability in any respect.
“Witness our hands this 10th day of Nov., 1916.” ‘ *
This written contract required the work to be constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications adopted by the city and set out in the contract between the city and the contractors. The only issue submitted to the jury was:
“Was the pavement in controversy constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications set out in the contract entered into by and between the city commission of Sulphur Springs and the contractors, Oobb & Gregory?”
The question being answered “Yes” by the jury on evidence to support the issue that the work was done in accordance with the contract, the appellees were legally entitled to recover upon the promise contained in the written contract admittedly executed by the appellant. The appellant could legally make a personal contract concerning the improvement in the street. Lewis v. Roach Manigan Paving Go. (Tex. Civ. App.) 184 S. W.. 680.
It is noted that the judgment as rendered appears, as a clerical error, $19.33 in excess of what it should be, and to that extent should he reformed so as to reduce it to the proper amount.
The former judgment reversing and remanding is set aside, and the judgment as reformed is in all things affirmed.