Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

164 S.W. 14

Blair v. Lowrey

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided February 21, 1914

Court of Appeals of Texas · decided 1914-02-21

<p>Specific Performance (§ 13*) — Defenses — OWNERSHIP of Property.</p> <p>If the property does not belong to the person contracting to convey, the contract cannot be specifically enforced.'</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Specific Performance, Cent. Dig. §§ 30-32; Dec. Dig. § 13.*]</p>

Relies on Moss & Raley v. Wren · Houston & Texas Central Railroad v. Keeling · 53 Tex. Civ. App. 448 - Clifton v. Charles

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1914-02-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 1940

9 state decisions

401914192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

HALL, J.

¶1 J. W. Blair, as real estate broker, filed this suit in the county court of Floyd county against appellee, Lowrey, to recover $500, alleged to be due as commissions on the sale of defendant’s real estate. Plaintiff’s petition contains the necessary allegations, and the defendant’s answer, after general denial, alleged that no exchange was made, and that Stephens, the other party to the exchange, was unable to carry out his agreement, because he did not own the land, and that it was not defendant’s fault that the trade was never consummated. At the conclusion of the testimony the court directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, and judgment was entered accordingly.

¶2 Several questions are presented in the appellant’s brief for consideration; but in our opinion it will only be necessary to consider one proposition. Appellee insists that the written contract entered into between appel-lee and J. J. Stephens was not binding, and could not be specifically enforced, and that, under the case of Moss & Raley v. Wren, 102 Tex. 567, 113 S. W. 739, 120 S. W. 847, and authoiities there cited, appellant was not entitled to commissions until such a contract had been executed. The evidence developed the fact that a portion of the land which Stephens was to convey to appellee in part consideration for appellee’s land belonged to the wife of Stephens, and that she refused to execute a conveyance, thus placing it beyond the power of appellee and Stephens to close the trade. The rule is that, when the proof shows that the property contracted for does not belong to the party making the contract, there can be no specific performance decreed. C. W. Hahl & Co. v. West, 129 S. W. 878; Clifton v. Charles, 53 Tex. Civ. App. 448, 116 S. W. 122. There being no issue of fact to submit to the jury, we think the court was correct in peremptorily instructing a verdict.

¶3 The judgment is affirmed.

/164/sw/14 · .json · Public domain