Court Opinion

ID: 9833498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:45:45.805494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:03.529788
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellees, in their motion for a rehearing, contend that as appellants did not object and except to the submission of issue-No. 6 to the jury, on the ground that it was not supported by the pleadings and the evidence, they should not now be heard to raise this matter after the jury have-decided the issue against them.
We do not agree with this contention. It has been definitely held by the Supreme Court, speaking through the Commission of Appeals, that it is fundamental error of the trial court to submit an issue to the jury which has not been plead. Dominguez v. Garcia (Tex.Com.App.) 53 S.W.(2d) 459; Id. (Tex.Civ.App.) 36 S.W.(2d) 299.
While article 2190, R.S.1925, as amended by Acts 1931, 42d Leg. p. 120, ch. 78, § 1 (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 2190L *305expressly provides, among other things, that, “A claim that the evidence was insufficient to warrant the submission of an issue may be complained of for- the first time after verdict, regardless of whether the submission of such issue was requested by the complaining párty,” ⅛ is clear from this statute that a party may raise the question that the evidence is insufficient to warrant the submission of an issue to the jury, where no objection was made thereto, and even where the complaining party requested that such issue be submitted to the jury. The law was no doubt to the contrary before the enactment of the above-quoted part of article 2190.
There is a line of decisions holding that where a contract is not to become effective until accepted by the seller, a provision such as is contained in paragraph 18 is binding upon the buyer. Lay v. Midland Farms Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 8 S.W.(2d) 230; Kasch v. Williams (Tex.Civ.App.) 251 S.W. 816; 75 A.L.R. 1047.
But where a contract is accepted by the agent and does not provide that it is not to become effective until accepted by the seller, such a provision as is contained in paragraph 18 is not binding upon the buyer, and he may allege and prove that he was induced to execute the contract by false promises of the agent not contained in the contract. United States Gypsum Co. v. Shields (Tex.Civ.App.) 106 S.W. 724; Id., 101 Tex. 473, 108 S.W. 1165; Blair & Hughes Co. v. Watkins & Kelley (Tex.Civ.App.) 179 S.W. 530; J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. Webb (Tex.Civ.App.) 181 S.W. 853; Bankers’ Trust Co. v. Calhoun (Tex.Civ.App.) 209 S.W. 826; Landfried et ux. v. Milam et al. (Tex.Civ.App.) 214 S.W. 847; Detroit Automatic Scale Co. v. G. B. R. Smith Milling Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 217 S.W. 198; American Law Book Co. v. Fulwiler (Tex.Civ.App.) 219 S.W. 881; Hackney Mfg. Co. v. Celum et al. (Tex.Civ.App.) 189 S.W. 988; Id. (Tex.Com.App.) 221 S.W. 577; Edward Thompson Co. v. Sawyers, 111 Tex. 374, 234 S.W. 873; George v. Birchfield (Tex.Civ.App.) 264 S.W. 632; Commercial Jewelry Co. v. Braczyk (Tex.Civ.App.) 277 S.W. 754; J. B. Colt Co. v. Wheeler, et ux. (Tex.Civ.App.) 12 S.W.(2d) 1102; Marion Machine Foundry & Supply Co. v. R. T. Harris Interests et al. (Tex.Civ.App.) 26 S.W.(2d) 449; Mikulik v. Southwestern Specialty Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 58 S.W.(2d) 1052; Free Sewing Machine Co. v. S. T. Atkin Furniture Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 71 S.W.(2d) 604; 95 A.L.R. 766; American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law of Agency, §§ 259 and 260.
In the case at bar, the contract was accepted by Olmsted without any reservation that it had to be accepted by the seller, and this case is ruled by the authorities last above cited.
After again reviewing this entire cause, we have concluded that the ends of justice will be best met by remanding and not here rendering this cause. Dominguez v. Garcia, supra.
Accordingly, the judgment heretofore entered herein will be set aside, in so far as it rendered this cause, and it will be amended so as to provide that this cause is remanded for a new trial.