Court Opinion

ID: 9857943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:09:41.771134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:22.775052
License: Public Domain

McGILL, Justice
(concurring).
The question that has given me most concern in this case is whether we were correct in rendering judgment against ap-pellee or whether the case should have been remanded for a new trial.
There is no question but that the case was tried in the trial court and briefed in this court on a theory entirely different from the basis of ortr decision. The theory of the trial court, as appears from his findings and conclusions, was that a case for reformation was made when it was shown that the true agreement of the parties. did not embrace all of the land described in the deed. As pointed out in our original opinion in Sun Oil Co. v. Bennett, 125 Tex. 540, 84 S.W.2d 447, the Supreme Court held this is not enough, but that the parties seeking reformation must go further and establish the fact that the terms or provisions of writing which differ from the true agreement made were placed in the instrument by mutual mistake. This court is authorized upon reversal to render judgment where a case has been tried upon the wrong theory only when the record discloses that the complaining party would not have been able to recover had the case been tried on the right theory. Benoit v. Wilson, Tex.Sup., 239 S.W.2d 792.
After mature reflection I have reached the conclusion that our original disposition was correct. If our decision were based solely on the rule enunciated in Sun Oil Company v. Bennett, supra, then it would follow, I think, that the cause would have to be remanded to afford appellee an opportunity to prove and obtain a finding, if it can, that there was a mutual mistake of the parties in inserting in the deed a description which embraced more land than they had mutually agreed was the subject matter.of the sale; but our disposition is not grounded solely on the rule of Sun Oil Co. v. Bennett. The other ground is amplified in the foregoing opinion by the Chief Justice. Believing this ground to be sound, I see no possibility under this record of appellee ever being able to establish any mistake on the part of appellant John W. Chanoux as to the description of the land inserted in the earnest money contract. This phase of the case has been fully developed and there is nothing to be gained by a further trial thereof. Rogers v. Blake, Tex.Sup., 240 S.W.2d 1001; London Terrace, Inc. v. McAlister, 142 Tex. 608, 180 S.W.2d 619.
I concur in overruling appellant’s second motion for a rehearing.