Ziegler v. Bivins

Court of Appeals of Texas

Ziegler v. Bivins

110 S.W.2d 150, 1937 Tex. App. LEXIS 1230

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 11, 1937

DocketNo. 3567.

StatusPublished

This text of 110 S.W.2d 150 (Ziegler v. Bivins) 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

Ziegler v. Bivins, 110 S.W.2d 150, 1937 Tex. App. LEXIS 1230 (Tex. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

NEALON, Chief Justice.

Appellee, a real estate broker, recovered of appellant the sum of $250, which a'jury found to be the value of his services in procuring a purchaser for certain real estate in the city of Longview. The judgment was based upon the answers to certain special issues. It was undisputed that appellee interested the purchaser in the property; that appellant had authorized him to sell it; that appellee reported the progress of his negotiations to appellant; that ultimately appellant sold to said purchaser at a smaller price than appellee was authorized to receive. The controlling questions were: Did appellant revoke appellee’s agency prior to the sale? ■ Was appellee the efficient and procuring cause of the sale? What was the value of ap-pellee’s services?

" The jury answered the first two issues favorably to appellee. To the third it answered, “$250.00.” Judgment was accordingly entered in favor of appellee for said amount, and from this judgment appeal has been perfected.

The evidence, though conflicting, was sufficient to support the verdict. Appellant’s assignments urge no reversible error. The facts of the case, as found, are controlled by Edmonson v. Tinsley (Tex.Civ.App.) 15 S.W.2d 118; Dickinson v. Sanders (Tex.Civ.App.) 39 S.W.2d 102; Wisdom v. W. T. Jones & Son (Tex.Civ.App.) 288 S.W. 270; Goodwin v. Gunter, 109 Tex. 56, 185 S.W. 295, 195 S.W. 848.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

NEALON, Chief Justice.

Appellee, a real estate broker, recovered of appellant the sum of $250, which a'jury found to be the value of his services in procuring a purchaser for certain real estate in the city of Longview. The judgment was based upon the answers to certain special issues. It was undisputed that appellee interested the purchaser in the property; that appellant had authorized him to sell it; that appellee reported the progress of his negotiations to appellant; that ultimately appellant sold to said purchaser at a smaller price than appellee was authorized to receive. The controlling questions were: Did appellant revoke appellee’s agency prior to the sale? ■ Was appellee the efficient and procuring cause of the sale? What was the value of ap-pellee’s services?

" The jury answered the first two issues favorably to appellee. To the third it answered, “$250.00.” Judgment was accordingly entered in favor of appellee for said amount, and from this judgment appeal has been perfected.

The evidence, though conflicting, was sufficient to support the verdict. Appellant’s assignments urge no reversible error. The facts of the case, as found, are controlled by Edmonson v. Tinsley (Tex.Civ.App.) 15 S.W.2d 118; Dickinson v. Sanders (Tex.Civ.App.) 39 S.W.2d 102; Wisdom v. W. T. Jones & Son (Tex.Civ.App.) 288 S.W. 270; Goodwin v. Gunter, 109 Tex. 56, 185 S.W. 295, 195 S.W. 848.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 S.W.2d 150, 1937 Tex. App. LEXIS 1230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ziegler-v-bivins-texapp-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack