Court Opinion

ID: 9834453
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:36:18.435372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:15.662708
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
When we reversed and rendered this cause upon the whole case and stated that we would not reverse and remand, upon a quantum meruit, the opinion is probably misunderstood by both parties. We meant that as to the commissions only for the sale of the land exclusively applied to that proposition, this record exhibits that there is no such tiling as an implied contract, or a quantum meruit, for the reason that it is unequivocally shown that an express contract unconditionally existed between the parties. That contract was a certain amount for the land, “net” to Overshiner. An express contract of the amount net to Overshiner destroys any alleged implied contract out of that same sum. Elliott on Contracts, vol. 2, § 1360; Enc. of L. & Proc. vol. 9, p. 242, and citations; Gammage v. Alexander, 14 Tex. 414, and particularly the ease of Lumber Co. v. Water Co., 94 Tex. 464, 61 S. W. 707, cited and quoted from in the original opinion. If an attempt were made to prove an implied contract, or quantum meruit, as applied to commissions, the express contract would destroy it.
As to the proposition held by us of unconditional offer and unconditional acceptance— which is the condition of the record here — ap-pellee’s authorities are inapplicable.