Court Opinion

ID: 9685118
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:23:27.950645+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:02.531088
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
It is immaterial in this case whether, if a reasonably prudent man looked at the plat of Morningside Addition, he would have been put on inquiry as to whether it was bounded on the east by Ideal Street.
This, because the evidence affirmatively shows that no one who represented plaintiff, and knew of the representation that Ideal Street was its east boundary line, and' of its materiality, ever saw the plat until Mr. Hargis saw it, under the circumstances referred to in our original opinion.
Even had the title guaranty company examined the title, which it presumably did, it would not- have .gained therefrom any knowledge of the false representation. And the attorney, who was employed to draft the papers- .in the transaction, could not have learned from the plat of the representation that Ideal Street was the east boundary line of. the property. In a word, the plaintiff was charged with the knowledge, as a matter of law, of matters which the plat, as dedicated, imposed upon the property which was conveyed to plaintiff, but not what was beyond the dedicated property.
The plaintiff had : the right to believe that defendants knew the location of their property, and its boundaries, and had the right to take the agents’ word that Ideal Street was the east boundary line. And, as indicated, in our original opinion, the plaintiff did so. Here the rule applied in such cases as Stevenson v. Cauble, 55-Tex.Civ.App. 75, 118 S.W. 811, 812, applies, “ * * * when one by false representations of facts, although innocently made, induces another to enter into a contract, and such misrepresentations are made the basis for relief sought by the other, it is no defense to the prayer for such relief to show that the person deceived had the opportunity and means of correctly informing himself in the premises, unless it be further shown. that he took some steps in making an independent investigation of the facts.”
The corporate appellee’s motion for rehearing is granted, and the judgment insofar as was rendered by the trial court in its favor is now affirmed. However, the judgment of this court remanding the case as to the third party defendants remains unchanged.
Motion for rehearing granted in part. Former judgment set aside.