Court Opinion

ID: 9832845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:14:56.509523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:53.929313
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee contends that this is not a suit to recover the difference in the value of the land intended to be purchased and that which was conveyed, but that it is a suit to recover, on account of fraudulent representations, the difference between the price which she paid for the land conveyed to her and its value, the price paid being the market value of the Rosebud land.
If we should look alone to the specific relief prayed for, this contention would be correct, but, in addition to the specific prayer to recover the difference between her equity in the Rosebud land and appellee’s equity in the Hartley county land, she also prayed for general relief. She alleged in her petition :
“That the improvements pointed out and shown to the agent of this plaintiff by the defendant, and represented to be the property plaintiff was acquiring, rendered and made the tract of land pointed out worth at least $1,000 more than the property she did acquire from the defendant, and that the property she got was worth $1,000 less' than the property the defendant represented he was conveying to her.”
Under a prayer for general relief, the court should grant any relief demanded by the facts alleged and proven, and is not confined to the relief specifically prayed for. Hardy v. DeLeon, 5 Tex. 246; Cravens v. Wilson, 48 Tex. 341, 342; Voigtlander v. Brotze, 59 Tex. 287, 289; Ware’s Adm’rs v. Bennett, 18 Tex. 807; Crenshaw v. Staples (Tex. Civ. App.) 173 S. W. 1185; Griner v. Trevino (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. 947.
*553The relief to which appellant was entitled under the allegations above set out was as indicated in our original opinion herein.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.