Fred v. Ledlow

Court of Appeals of Texas

Fred v. Ledlow

309 S.W.2d 490, 1958 Tex. App. LEXIS 1749

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 22, 1958

Docket13286

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 309 S.W.2d 490 (Fred v. Ledlow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fred v. Ledlow, 309 S.W.2d 490, 1958 Tex. App. LEXIS 1749 (Tex. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

POPE, Justice.

The court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ motion. Plaintiff, R. L. Fred, owned a twenty-year lease on a five-acre resort camp called Flat Rock Camp at Marble Falls Dam. Defendants, F. L. Ledlow and L. E. Bacon, were interested in buying the lease and also in negotiating with the owners to purchase the real property. C. C. Storm and John Quick were also sued, for they were the agents who were handling the transaction.

After some negotiations, plaintiff, Fred, and the two buyers signed an earnest money contract by which the buyers agreed to buy the lease for $9,500.00. However, above their signatures were inserted the words: “This contract made subject to buyer purchasing or leasing land from owner.” That sentence is the basis for the court’s summary judgment for the defendants. That the contract so provided is not disputed. Plaintiff says that the owners were willing to sell the land to the buyers and for that reason there was no condition which remained unfulfilled. Mr. and Mrs. Mahan, the owners, in an affidavit, stated that they were willing to sell the land for $10,000.00. However, their affidavit also states that the agents presented a contract to them for the sale at that price, and they refused to sign it until the buyers signed it. >. The buyers never signed a contract, and there is nothing which shows they were willing to pay $10,000.00 for the property, or the terms for such payment. All that the affidavit shows is that the sellers were willing to sell on terms which were never accepted by the buyers. This does not make a contract, and the record wholly fails to show that the buyers either bought or leased the land from the owners, the condition upon which rested the contract with Fred. For the reasons expressed by this Court in Pena v. Security Title Co., Tex.Civ.App., 267 S.W.2d 847, the condition in the contract kept the agreement from becoming effective. Lallier v. Mueller, Tex.Civ.App., 300 S.W.2d 293; Continental Transfer & Storage Co. v. Swann, Tex.Civ. App., 278 S.W.2d 413; Shaper v. Gilkison, Tex.Civ.App., 217 S.W.2d 878.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

POPE, Justice.

The court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ motion. Plaintiff, R. L. Fred, owned a twenty-year lease on a five-acre resort camp called Flat Rock Camp at Marble Falls Dam. Defendants, F. L. Ledlow and L. E. Bacon, were interested in buying the lease and also in negotiating with the owners to purchase the real property. C. C. Storm and John Quick were also sued, for they were the agents who were handling the transaction.

After some negotiations, plaintiff, Fred, and the two buyers signed an earnest money contract by which the buyers agreed to buy the lease for $9,500.00. However, above their signatures were inserted the words: “This contract made subject to buyer purchasing or leasing land from owner.” That sentence is the basis for the court’s summary judgment for the defendants. That the contract so provided is not disputed. Plaintiff says that the owners were willing to sell the land to the buyers and for that reason there was no condition which remained unfulfilled. Mr. and Mrs. Mahan, the owners, in an affidavit, stated that they were willing to sell the land for $10,000.00. However, their affidavit also states that the agents presented a contract to them for the sale at that price, and they refused to sign it until the buyers signed it. >. The buyers never signed a contract, and there is nothing which shows they were willing to pay $10,000.00 for the property, or the terms for such payment. All that the affidavit shows is that the sellers were willing to sell on terms which were never accepted by the buyers. This does not make a contract, and the record wholly fails to show that the buyers either bought or leased the land from the owners, the condition upon which rested the contract with Fred. For the reasons expressed by this Court in Pena v. Security Title Co., Tex.Civ.App., 267 S.W.2d 847, the condition in the contract kept the agreement from becoming effective. Lallier v. Mueller, Tex.Civ.App., 300 S.W.2d 293; Continental Transfer & Storage Co. v. Swann, Tex.Civ. App., 278 S.W.2d 413; Shaper v. Gilkison, Tex.Civ.App., 217 S.W.2d 878.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 S.W.2d 490, 1958 Tex. App. LEXIS 1749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fred-v-ledlow-texapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack