Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/Young v. Linn Motor Co.

Young v. Linn Motor Co.

53 S.W.2d 799
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 21, 1932
DocketNo. 2225.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 53 S.W.2d 799 (Young v. Linn Motor Co.) 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
Young v. Linn Motor Co., 53 S.W.2d 799 (Tex. Ct. App. 1932).

Opinion

O’QUINN, J.

This suit grew out of a party wall contract. Linn Motor Company, a corporation, located and doing business in the city of Port Arthur, Jefferson county, Tex., owned lot 3, block 143, in said city, and Dr. T. W. Young and his wife, Mrs. T. W. Young, owned the adjoining lot 4, block 143, in said city. Linn Motor Company, desiring to erect a brick building upon its lot, and Dr. Young and wife contemplating building upon their lot at some time in the future, entered into the following contract for'the building of a party "wall on the dividing line of their lots, to wit:

“The State of Texas, County, of Jefferson.
“This Agreement, made and entered into this 29th day of May, A. D. 1929, by and between Linn Motor 'Company, a corporation with its office and principal place of business located in Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas, herein called first party and Dr. T. W. Young and wife, Mrs. T. W. Young, each residing in the city of Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas, called second parties, witness-eth that:
“Whereas, the first party is the owner of ■ Lot 3, Block 143 of the City of Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas, and the secón,d parties are the owners of Lot 4, Block 143 of the city of Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas, which two lots are adjoining; and
“Whereas, the parties hereto desire to provide for the erection o£ a party wall on the dividing line between the said lots;
“Now, therefore, this agreement witnesseth that Linn Motor Company, first party, will construct a wall, the center line of said wall to coincide with the boundary line between said lots Number 3 and 4 in Block 143 of the City of Port Arthur, Texas, said wall to be two stories high, the first story thereof to be approximately seventeen (17) inches thick and to be constructed of brick and reinforced concrete, the second story of said wall to be approximately thirteen (13) inches thipk and to be constructed of brick. Said wall shall have *800 a necessary and suitable foundation for its support. Said foundation may extend on either side of the boundary line between the two lots such distance as may be absolutely necessary for the support thereof not to exceed an extension of twelve (12) inches beyond the edge of said wall. Said wall may extend the full length of the boundary line between said lots.
“The costs of constructing the wall above described shall be paid by the first party and the second party hereto shall have the right to join on to, connect with and tie into said wall, or any portion thereof at any time they may see fit, upon payment to the first party of the sum of Twenty-three Hundred Thirty ($2330.-00) Dollars. Second parties have the right in joining on to said wall to cut into said wall for the purpose of tieing connecting walls thereto any reasonable depth not to exceed four inches.
“And the parties hereto covenant, for themselves and their respective successors, assigns, heirs and representatives, each to and with the other, its or their successors, assigns, representatives and heirs, to observe the above agreement, and the covenants herein contained shall run with the land; but no owner is to be responsible, except for its acts ■or defaults while owners. Should said wall, after the same becomes a joint wall,' need repairs said repairs shall be made and each party pay its or their proportionate part of such repairs. It is further agreed by the parties hereto that this agreement shail be perpetual.
“In witness whereof, Linn Motor Company, first party, has caused this instrument to be executed by its Vice President, duly authorized, and Dr. T. W. Young and wife, Mrs. T. W. Young, in their own behalf have affixed their signatures hereto:
“This contract executed in duplicate on May 29, 1929.
“Linn Motor Company
“By [Signed] J. D. Hogan, V. Pres.
“First Party
“T. W. Young, Jr.
“Mrs. T. W. Young
“Second Parties
“Attest: [Signed] Glenn Bell, its Secretary”

This contract was duly acknowledged by all parties.

Under this contract, Linn Motor Company built the party wall. Later, August 31, 1929, Dr. Young and wife leased their lot to P. H. Inman for a period of seven years for the rental of $100 per month. Inman was a member of the Inman Chevrolet Company. This company was doing business and occupying a brick building- on the l.ot adjoining lot 4 on the opposite side from the Linn Motor Company building. That left lot 4 between the two brick buildings, Linn Motor Company’s on one side, and the one occupied by the In-man Chevrolet Company on the other. After leasing lot 4, Inman closed the ends by erecting a strong wire fence with a lift gate in front. He also erected a shed covering some 45 or 50 feet of the rear end of the lot. It was covered with corrugated iron roofing. The Inman Chevrolet 'Company used the lot for the storing and display of used cars. When this use commenced to be made of the lot, appellee, Linn Motor Company, demanded payment by Dr. Young of the agreed price of one-half of the party wall, $2,330. This Dr. Young refused, and Linn Motor Company brought this suit against Dr. Young'and his wife, and P. H. Inman and Major Inman, to recover said sum.

Defendants Young answered by general demurrer, general denial, and specially denied that any building such as was contemplated by the parties in their party wall contract had been erected upon the property. The defendants Inman answered by general demurrer, general denial, and specially that the structure erected by them was exclusively upon lot 4, and at “some distance from the dividing line.”

The case was tried to a jury. At the conclusion of the evidence, appellants moved for an instructed verdict, which motion was refused. The court then instructed the jury to return a verdict in favor of appellee Linn Motor Company against the defendants Dr. Young and his wife for the amount sued for, and in favor -of the defendants P. H. Inman and Major.Inman, which they did, and judgment was entered accordingly. Motion for a new trial was overruled, and Dr. Young and wife bring this appeal.

Appellants’ first proposition urges that the court erred in refusing their motion for an instructed verdict. This is based upon the contention that the structure erected upon the lot and its use is not such building or use of the party wall as was contemplated by the parties in the party wall contract. The facts are without dispute. In addition to the facts stated above, the record discloses that the party wall was built half upon each lot. In-man put a concrete-floor on lot 4 covering the entire lot up to the party wall. The shed ■built by Inman was not in any manner attached to or supported by the party wall. It was supported by steel or iron posts set in the concrete floor some 18 inches from the wall. The shed covered some 45 or 50 feet of the rear end of the lot and had corrugated iron roofing. The remainder of the lot was not covered but was entirely open — that is, had no roof. The ends of the lot were closed by heavy wire fencing, and there was a lift gate at the front.

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

Related

Lorenzo Gomez, as the and Representative of the Estate of Agapito Gomez v. Texas Windstorm Insurance Association
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 S.W.2d 799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-linn-motor-co-texapp-1932.