Court Opinion

ID: 9830966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:39:52.458012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:28.782614
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellant has filed herein a motion for rehearing, in which he has abandoned all other assignments, except that in which he complains that the court erred in the following1 paragraph of its charge, to wit: “If you further believe from the evidence that the defendant agreed with the plaintiff to pay 2ya per cent, commission on $4,500, the value of the land in exchange, and 5 per cent, commission on the value to be paid in cash, and you further believe that the. said sum was reasonable compensation for said services, if any, then, in that event, if you so believe, you will find in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in such an amount as you may find from the evidence that he is entitled to receive.”
[4] It is urged that the jury, under this charge, could not find for plaintiff, unless they should believe from the evidence, not only that appellee had agreed to pay such amount as a stipulated commission, but also that said amount was reasonable. We differ with appellant in this construction. It is true, as stated, that if the jury believed that appellee had agreed to pay said amount, and that the same was reasonable, then they should find for plaintiff, but this did *1189not preclude a finding for him upon less than this. See G., C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Hill, 95 Tex. 629, 69 S. W. 136; Railway Co. v. Brown, 78 Tes. 397, 14 S. W. 1034; Railway Co. v. Wood, 69 Tes. 679, 7 S. W. 372; and Boswell et al. v. Pannell, 146 S, W.-, decided by this court February 21, 1912. The only issue presented by the pleading and evidence on the part of plaintiff was that he had procured a purchaser for the land which appellee had listed with him before appellee had sold the same to West. There was no controversy as to the compensation, nor any other fact.
[5] The undisputed evidence showed that appellee, who had reserved the right to sell the land himself, had in fact sold the same to West before plaintiff had secured his purchaser. This being true, we think the court would have been justified in peremptorily instructing a verdict in favor of defendant. Therefore the error complained of, if any, was harmless. It is not every erroneous charge that is ground for reversal. If the jury could have found no other verdict under the evidence, error in a charge is not cause for reversal. See Hubby v. Stokes, 22 Tex. 220; Sypert v. McCowan, 28 Tex. 639; Albright v. Corley, 40 Tex. 112; McClane v. Rogers, 42 Tex. 220; Railway Co. v. Delahunty, 53 Tex. 206; Gaston & Thomas v. Dashiell, 55 Tex. 520; Worthington v. Wade et al., 82 Tex. 28, 17 S. W. 520. It has also been held that, where a verdict is authorized by the evidence, and the justice of the case has been attained, the same will'not be reversed for error in the charge. James v. Thompson, 14 Tex. 464; Hill v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 80 Tex. 435, 15 S. W. 1099.
The error in the charge, if any, being harmless, appellant has no just ground of complaint, for which reason the motion for rehearing is overruled.
Motion overruled.