Webb v. Hardy

269 S.W. 243
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 13, 1924
DocketNo. 10888. [fn*]
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 269 S.W. 243 (Webb v. Hardy) 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
Webb v. Hardy, 269 S.W. 243 (Tex. Ct. App. 1924).

Opinion

BUCK, J.

D. M. Hardy brought this suit in the district court of Baylor county against Sidney Webb, Lee Anderson, and J. H. Turbe-ville. Plaintiff alleged, in substance: That about the first day of May, 1921, he was engaged in selling real estate 'as a broker, and about said date defendant Sidney Webb listed with him for sale a tract of land, of some 10,000 acres, situated in Baylor county, at the price of $15 per acre, or upon such price as he, the said Sidney Webb, and the prospective purchaser might agree upon and upon such conditions as might be agreed upon when said sale was consummated. That for his services in procuring a purchaser or in selling said land upon the conditions aforesaid, plaintiff was to receive the sum of $2,-000 commission, which was to be paid by defendant to the plaintiff at the time of making said sale. That in pursuance of said agreement plaintiff on or about the 10th day of May, 1921, procured a purchaser for said land and premises, in the person of J. H. Turbeville, of .Baylor county, who, after some negotiations, purchased said land from said Webb at a price agreed upon between said Turbeville and -Webb, which plaintiff is informed and believes was at the price of $13.-50 per acre. That plaintiff alleged that after the land was listed with him and the said Turbeville had been procured by plaintiff as a purchaser therefor, and after plaintiff-had gone to some trouble and expense in securing and interesting the said Turbeville and had got the deal well started, defendants Webb, Turbeville, and Anderson, acting in bad faith and in collusion with each other, conspired and planned to consummate said sale between themselves with a view of beating and cheating plaintiff out of his commission. That said Anderson and Webb, as coconspirators and for the purpose of defrauding-plaintiff out of his commission, entered into a fraudulent contract whereby the defendant Lee Anderson was to buy the property from Webb, representing it was for himself, but in truth and in fact for the defendant Turbeville. That said Anderson was financially unable to buy said iand, which fact was known to the defendant Webb, and that the deal was consummated between said Webb and Turbeville and the deed was made directly to J. H. Turbeville, who was procured by plaintiff, and that by reason of the allegations pleaded, defendants and each of them became indebted to and liable to plaintiff in the sum of $2,000, with interest.

The defendant Webb answered by a general denial and by special answer: That he did in the early spring of 1921 list approximately 10,000 acres of land with plaintiff for sale at $15 per acre. That the plaintiff did show said land to the defendant Turbeville about the month of April, 1921. That said Turbe-ville declined to purchase said land at the time, and all efforts to sell to said Turbe-ville ceased and were abandoned. That on August 30, 1921, defendant Webb in good faith sold said land to his codefendant, Lee Anderson. That said sale was evidenced by a contract in writing. That the deed to said property was to be deliveréd to said Anderson about October 1, 1921. That defendant Turbeville was not known in and was not a party to said deal. That some time after October 1, 1921, at the request of the said Lee Anderson, Webb in good faith executed a deed to said property to the said Turbe-ville. That said transaction with said Anderson was made in good faith, and he was informed and believed that the sale between Anderson and Turbeville was likewise in good faith. That no fraud or collusion was entered into by defendant in any way, and the sale to Anderson was in good faith and without any purpose or intention of defrauding any one; and that plaintiff had nothing to do with and was not concerned in the sale to Anderson. That the deed from Webb to Turbeville was made at the request of Anderson, he representing that he had sold said property between the time he had purchased the same from Webb on August 30, 1921, and the time of the delivery of the deed, on October 1, thereafter, and that Webb made the deed to Turbeville as a matter of convenience and accommodation to said Anderson. He further pleaded that if there had been any collusion or fraud practiced in the deal, it was without his knowledge or consent, and if said Anderson and Turbeville were interested together in the original purchase of said land or conspired against plaintiff, it was without .the knowledge or consent of defendant Webb, and if said defendant was in any way liable to plaintiff for any commission, that he should have a like judgment over against his codefendants for any sums of money recovered against him. That he reduced the price of the land from $15 to $13.50 an acre, and had .he known that he would have been liable to plaintiff for commissions he would not have reduced the price.'

The defendants Lee Anderson and T. H. Turbeville likewise filed answers to plaintiff’s petition, and defendant Turbeville filed a cross-action against Webb for any recovery had against him.

The cause was tried before the court, without the intervention of a jury, and judgment was rendered for plaintiff against defendant Webb for $2,000, and judgment given for defendant Webb over against defendant Anderson for a like amount, and judgment given for defendant Turbeville. From *245 this judgment the defendants Webb and Anderson have appealed, and have filed separate briefs in this court.

It is urged by appellant Webb that the evidence is entirely insufficient to show any liability on bis part for the commission claimed by appellee. Plaintiff testified that be lived in Wichita Palls and was acquainted with defendant Webb, and that some Ijime in April or May, 1921, he had a talk with him with reference to the sale of this land; that he told Webb that he thought he had a man that he could sell the land to, and that the man he had in view was Met Qhenault; that Webb asked $15 an acre, and agreed to pay him $2,000 commission; that later he interested Mr. Turbeville in this matter and took him out .to see the land, and subsequently Mr. Webb and Mr. Turbeville met on the ranch and had a long talk with reference to the trade; that plaintiff told Mr. Webb:

“If you have any better price, I think Mr. Turbeville is going to buy either the Anderson ranch or your ranch, one or the other, and if you have any better price than $15 you had better give it to me.”

Mr. Webb said:

“I haven’t got any better price; I would keep it before I would sell it for less.”

He further said:

“I would rather see Anderson sell his ranch to Turbeville than to sell this one to him myself.”

He said he would hate to see plaintiff lose his commission, but he would rather see Anderson sell his ranch than for him (Webb) to sell. He thought the notes would be good with Turbeville and Cowan on them. Plaintiff testified that this conversation occurred in the latter part of June or first of July; that the next thing he heard with reference to this land and the Turbeville deal was that Turbeville had bought the Anderson land; that he then requested Webb to give him a 10 days’ option, but Webb said:

“I will tell you what I will do. There are other people that want to buy it, and before I do sell it I will call you over the ‘phone and give you a day or two.”

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

Related

Boyles v. Hyder (In re Boyles)
22 B.R. 851 (N.D. Texas, 1982)
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Carter
94 S.W.2d 1221 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1936)
Hardy v. Webb
282 S.W. 210 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
269 S.W. 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webb-v-hardy-texapp-1924.