Court Opinion

ID: 9862898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 02:26:36.855462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:38:00.054226
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In holding, as a matter of law, that John Wright was bound by the release between Commercial Title (signed by Thomas Hart) and Dave Hicks and Dave Hicks Company, we are not to be understood as finding that Hart acted as agent for John Wright. Rather, it is our view that because Wright gave the money to Commercial Title for its own use, he was equitably subrogated to any rights arising out of the payment to Dave Hicks and his corporation.
It is clear that any possible cause or causes of action in Wright’s favor as against Dave Hicks and Dave Hicks Company arose out of the payment of $76,380.47 from Commercial Title to Dave Hicks. It is also clear that in making such payment Commercial Title protected itself and John Wright against any possible liability in the event Dave Hicks Company foreclosed on its liens. Because John Wright provided the money for Commercial Title to negotiate the release, he was equitably subrogat-ed to any rights they might have acquired by virtue thereof.
It is fundamental that a subrogee stands in the shoes of the subrogor and in the absence of some special contract arrangement has no greater rights than those of the subrogor. Fox v. Kroeger, 119 Tex. 511, 35 S.W.2d 679 (1931); Anchor Casualty Co. v. Robertson Transport Co., 389 S.W.2d 135 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1965, writ ref’d n. r. e.). Such is the case at bar. Being subrogated to the rights of Commercial Title arising out of the payment of the $76,380.47, Wright had no greater rights *798than Commercial Title. Thomas Hart, acting for Commercial Title, bound Wright as to Dave Hicks and Dave Hicks Company in that Wright could not assert a claim which Commercial Title could not assert.
We disagree with appellee’s contention that we are rewriting the release, thereby violating the parol evidence rule. The question of the effect of the release is one of legal construction, and, therefore, a question of law for the court. See Exchange Bank and Trust v. Lone Star Life Ins. Co., 546 S.W.2d 948, 953 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1977, no writ). Our holding merely acknowledges the legal effect of the release. All motions for rehearing in this cause are overruled.