Johnson v. Wiley

Court of Appeals of Texas

Johnson v. Wiley

293 S.W. 837, 1927 Tex. App. LEXIS 169

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 6, 1927

DocketNo. 2811.

StatusPublished

This text of 293 S.W. 837 (Johnson v. Wiley) 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

Johnson v. Wiley, 293 S.W. 837, 1927 Tex. App. LEXIS 169 (Tex. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

JACKSON, J.

This suit was instituted in the district court of Knox county, Tex., by J. W. Wiley and C. W. Brown, who are ap-pellees here, to recover against Charles Johnson, the appellant, a commission for the sale ■of real estate. The petition alleges that as real estate agentsi they sold the appellant’s land to one C. White, and sufficiently alleges the cause of action.

Appellant answered by general denial, admitted by special answer that he had listed the land with appellees for sale; that they had brought to him a prospective purchaser, at which time he advised them that they would have but one week in which to negotiate the sale, after which time the place would be off the market; that the week expired, and appellees failed to procure a purchaser, and at the date the property was sold to C. White the listing contract with ap-pellees had been terminated; and that they were not the procuring cause in making the sale.

The case was submitted to the jury on spe *838 cial issues, in answer to which they found in effect that the appellant had listed his property with appellees for sale, and that they were the procuring cause of the sale to 0. White; that the reasonable commission for the sale was 3 per cent, of the purchase price, but the sale was not made on the terms of the listing contract. On this verdict the court rendered judgment for appellees for the sum of $360, with costs of suit, etc.

The appellant filed his motion for a new trial, which contains but one assignment, and that is to the effect that the judgment rendered against him is contrary to law and not supported by the testimony.

Appellant failed to bring forward in his brief any assignment of error, for which reason such assignment is waived and cannot be considered by this court. Supreme Assembly of Modern Americans v. Mitchell (Tex. Civ. App.) 275 S. W. 224; Double et al. v. Sawtell (Tex. Civ. App.) 271 S. W. 646; Schaff v. Stripling (Tex. Civ. App.) 265 S. W. 264.

However, if appellant had copied his only assignment, which was that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment, into his brief, we would not be in a position to pass upon its correctness, for the reason that the record contains no statement of facts.

There is no error apparent of record;

therefore the judgment is affirmed.

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

JACKSON, J.

This suit was instituted in the district court of Knox county, Tex., by J. W. Wiley and C. W. Brown, who are ap-pellees here, to recover against Charles Johnson, the appellant, a commission for the sale ■of real estate. The petition alleges that as real estate agentsi they sold the appellant’s land to one C. White, and sufficiently alleges the cause of action.

Appellant answered by general denial, admitted by special answer that he had listed the land with appellees for sale; that they had brought to him a prospective purchaser, at which time he advised them that they would have but one week in which to negotiate the sale, after which time the place would be off the market; that the week expired, and appellees failed to procure a purchaser, and at the date the property was sold to C. White the listing contract with ap-pellees had been terminated; and that they were not the procuring cause in making the sale.

The case was submitted to the jury on spe *838 cial issues, in answer to which they found in effect that the appellant had listed his property with appellees for sale, and that they were the procuring cause of the sale to 0. White; that the reasonable commission for the sale was 3 per cent, of the purchase price, but the sale was not made on the terms of the listing contract. On this verdict the court rendered judgment for appellees for the sum of $360, with costs of suit, etc.

The appellant filed his motion for a new trial, which contains but one assignment, and that is to the effect that the judgment rendered against him is contrary to law and not supported by the testimony.

Appellant failed to bring forward in his brief any assignment of error, for which reason such assignment is waived and cannot be considered by this court. Supreme Assembly of Modern Americans v. Mitchell (Tex. Civ. App.) 275 S. W. 224; Double et al. v. Sawtell (Tex. Civ. App.) 271 S. W. 646; Schaff v. Stripling (Tex. Civ. App.) 265 S. W. 264.

However, if appellant had copied his only assignment, which was that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment, into his brief, we would not be in a position to pass upon its correctness, for the reason that the record contains no statement of facts.

There is no error apparent of record;

therefore the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 S.W. 837, 1927 Tex. App. LEXIS 169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-wiley-texapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack