Court Opinion

ID: 9827682
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:46:00.581522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:34.438733
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[9] Through inadvertence, our reasons for overruling appellants’ eleventh assignment of error were omitted from the original opinion. By that assignment complaint is made of the trial court's refusal to sustain appellants’ objection to the testimony of Ince concerning statements made by J. H. Russell, when Ince first went to the office of Russell Bros, in Comanche, as follows: “Russell said to me, ‘We have got 160 acres of good black land for sale in Coleman county, and the man lives here in town that owns it, and I will go around to see him and see if we can make a trade,’ and said that it was good, black land. Russell returned to the office by himself and told me that the man wanted $20 per acre for the land, $3,200; but he says, T can get it for you for $3,000,’ and he said, T told him about your place in Oklahoma,’ and he seemed to be* well pleased with that country, and he says, T can get a trade for you for $1,000 to boot.’ He did not tell me, nor did I know, who the man was that owned the land. Russell then said, ‘Well, it is every bit good black land.’ ”
Appellants insist that, at the time that these alleged statements were made by Russell, he (Russell) was not the agent of appellants to negotiate a trade, and hence evidence of such statements was not admissible against them. The proof seems uncon-troverted that, when Ince first went to the office of Russell Bros., these gentlemen were not the agents of appellants to sell the land. But J. IT. Russell testified that, when he saw appellant Martin on the occasion referred to by Ince, he (Martin) agreed to pay Russell Bros, a commission in the event the trade was made with Ince. Thus it clearly appears that the statement that the land was “every bit good black land,” made to Ince by Russell after seeing Martin, was admissible, even though the same- statement made before Russell conferred with Martin was inadmissible. But appellants objected to the testimony as a whole, and, as a part of it was admissible, the assignment now under discussion is overruled. G., H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Gormley, 91 Tex. 393, 43 S. W. 877, 66 Am. St. Rep. 894; Jamison v. Dooley, 98 Tex. 206, 82 S. W. 780; Cotton Oil Co. v. Jonte, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 18, 80 S. W., loc. cit. 850.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.