Court Opinion

ID: 9832434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:54:31.992497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:46.763985
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The first contention defendant in error makes is that he complied with his contract by indicating a street upon his unplatted property, so that, within the letter of that portion of the contract that contemplated a sale of a corner lot, he had satisfied his obligation.
The contract did not stop there, but he also agreed therein “to cause a street to be opened, layed out, and established,” etc. The so-called street “established” by defendant in error is not adequate, and is at times impassable. It is not in compliance with the terms of the contract.
Judge Moursund, for this court, in Lasater v. Lopez, 202 S. W. 1039, made very clear what is meant by the words “to establish streets,” which concludes defendant in error’s contention.
The testimony introduced does not in the least contradict the written contract, but, as said in Magnolia Co. v. Davis, 108 Tex. 422, 195 S. W. 184:
“The general rule is that parol testimony cannot be received to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from the terms of a valid written contract. But one of the exceptions to the general rule is that, if the written instrument itself shows to be either ambiguous or incomplete, parol testimony is admissible to show what the real contract was to the extent necessary to remove the ambiguity, and to make the contract complete in its terms which show to be incomplete. The exception to the general rule is as well settled as is the rule itself.”
The contract itself is silent as to what kind of street should be established. Certainly it was never contemplated that- the contract could be complied with by furnishing the kind of street that was furnished.
There is nothing new in the motion for a rehearing not heretofore considered. But counsel for defendant in error says he has found the case of Lakewood Heights Co. v. McCuistion (Tex. Civ. App.) 226 S. W. 1109, which exactly supports his contention on the measure of damages, and is in conflict with this court.
There is no conflict there, apparent or implied. In the cited case, under a collateral agreement of purchase, the seller "of the lots in Dallas agreed to furnish electricity, gas, water, sewers, macadamized streets, and street cars. The measure of damages submitted' to the jury for the breach was the difference between the value of the property with sewerage, etc., supplied and not supplied. This cause was reversed and remanded.
Herel we have a contract executed in every particular save as to establishing the street. That part of the contract has been breached, and plaintiffs in error are entitled to recover their damages, if any, for whatever sum it will require to put them in statu quo; or, in other words, to put it in the condition agreed upon. In assessing the damages, the court may consider the difference between the amount paid for the property *542with the improvements situated thereon when completed, and the value of said improvements without the completed street, and what it will cost to put the street in the condition agreed upon.
The motion is overruled.