Wells v. Foreman

Court of Appeals of Texas

Wells v. Foreman

199 S.W. 1174, 1917 Tex. App. LEXIS 1173

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 6, 1917

DocketNo. 1874.

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 199 S.W. 1174 (Wells v. Foreman) 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

Wells v. Foreman, 199 S.W. 1174, 1917 Tex. App. LEXIS 1173 (Tex. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

LEVY, J.

(after stating the facts as above). The jury made the special findings that the contract, as pleaded, was made by the appel-lee with the appellant, and! that each party received and was put in possession of all the-property agreed upon between them. But the evidence established that the contract was an oral one, and there was no evidence that *1175 the plaintiff! had made valuable improvements on the place after he went into possession of the premises. In order to have a judgment of specific performance as to the real estate, as pleaded, it was necessary for the court to find, which the evidence did not authorize, that the plaintiff had made valuable improvements on the place. Therefore the court did not err, it is concluded, in entering judgment as he did for the defendant. Bor it is an essential, as a firmly established rule, to take a parol sale of land out of the statute of frauds that the vendee on the faith of the transaction has made valuable improvements on the land. Bradley v. Owsley, 74 Tex. 71, 11 S. W. 1052; Robertson v. Simpkins, 61 Tex. 259; Cobb v. Johnson, 101 Tex. 440, 108 S. W. 811. And this court has held, and adheres to the ruling, that there must be not only payment of purchase money and change of possession, but valuable improvements as well must be made upon the property by the vendee. Page v. Vaughan, 173 S. W. 541. See West v. Webster, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 272, 87 S. W. 196. And if the contract, as shown in the record, was legally unenforceable to compel conveyance of the land, then a recovery of “the value of the premises,” as pleaded, may not be awarded. But this does not mean that the consideration paid the appellee may not be recovered in a proper suit therefor.

The appellant’s assignments are overruled, and the judgment is affirmed. But in affirming the present judgment it is directed that it be done without prejudice to any right of the appellant to have suit for the recovery ¡of the purchase price paid to appellee.

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

LEVY, J.

(after stating the facts as above). The jury made the special findings that the contract, as pleaded, was made by the appel-lee with the appellant, and! that each party received and was put in possession of all the-property agreed upon between them. But the evidence established that the contract was an oral one, and there was no evidence that *1175 the plaintiff! had made valuable improvements on the place after he went into possession of the premises. In order to have a judgment of specific performance as to the real estate, as pleaded, it was necessary for the court to find, which the evidence did not authorize, that the plaintiff had made valuable improvements on the place. Therefore the court did not err, it is concluded, in entering judgment as he did for the defendant. Bor it is an essential, as a firmly established rule, to take a parol sale of land out of the statute of frauds that the vendee on the faith of the transaction has made valuable improvements on the land. Bradley v. Owsley, 74 Tex. 71, 11 S. W. 1052; Robertson v. Simpkins, 61 Tex. 259; Cobb v. Johnson, 101 Tex. 440, 108 S. W. 811. And this court has held, and adheres to the ruling, that there must be not only payment of purchase money and change of possession, but valuable improvements as well must be made upon the property by the vendee. Page v. Vaughan, 173 S. W. 541. See West v. Webster, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 272, 87 S. W. 196. And if the contract, as shown in the record, was legally unenforceable to compel conveyance of the land, then a recovery of “the value of the premises,” as pleaded, may not be awarded. But this does not mean that the consideration paid the appellee may not be recovered in a proper suit therefor.

The appellant’s assignments are overruled, and the judgment is affirmed. But in affirming the present judgment it is directed that it be done without prejudice to any right of the appellant to have suit for the recovery ¡of the purchase price paid to appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 S.W. 1174, 1917 Tex. App. LEXIS 1173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-v-foreman-texapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack