Court Opinion

ID: 9645120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:13:18.953533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:23.421937
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
On rehearing we have discovered that we were in error when we wrote in our opinion that appellee did not contend that appellants’ cause of action was barred if the breach occurred after application for rezoning was granted. Appellee did make such contention as an alternative proposition. And a restudy of the case in the light of appellee’s motion for rehearing convinces us that we were in error in holding that appellants’ cause of action was not barred as a matter of law. Our first impression that a fact question was presented as to a reasonable time for performance by appellee has given way to the conclusion that in this case, with no disputed facts, what was a reasonable time for performance was a question of law for the court. International & G. N. R. Co. v. Pape, 73 Tex. 501, 11 S.W. 526; McGary v. Campbell, Tex.Civ.App., 245 S.W. 106; Housing Authority of San Antonio v. Newton, Tex.Civ.App., 235 S.W.2d 197; 13 Tex.Jur.2d, p. 530, sec. 290.
A reasonable time is “ * * * such time as is necessary conveniently to do what the contract requires to be done, and as soon as circumstances will permit.” Hamilton v. Shirley-Self Motor Co., Tex. Civ.App., 202 S.W.2d 952, 954. “What is a reasonable time depends undoubtedly upon the nature and character of the thing to be done, the circumstances of the particular case, and the difficulties surrounding and attending its accomplishment.” Hart v. Bullion, 48 Tex. 278. “The term is a relative one, and its meaning differs according to the circumstances of each particular case, and is to be determined in any case only by viewing the situation confronting and the circumstances surrounding the contracting parties at the time the contract was made, and endeavoring to fix such a time as these *494reasonably indicate was within the contemplation and intention of the parties.” Alford v. Creagh, 7 Ala.App. 358, 62 So. 254, 257.
Appellants’ complaint was that appellee “never established a building line” and “neither instrument (Contracts A and B) was ever filed for record, nor did the defendant ever file for record any character of plat or dedication or other instrument fixing or establishing a building line or gave notice of its agreement to establish a building line.”
This suit was filed more than seven years after the contracts were executed, and more than five and a quarter years after the rezoning was accomplished. We believe a reasonable time for performance elapsed more than four years prior to the filing of the suit.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing is granted, the judgment heretofore rendered which reversed and remanded the cause is set aside, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.