*1 writ), al Paso — El the introduction of extrinsic lowed found ambi grounds. That court contract, relied on guity in the Scott rule and relied on the Murphy,

followed Powers, 447 S.W.2d 738 Henry v. stated 1969, no Dist.] [1st — Houston

writ), by appellant, the third case cited looking applied the rule of at circum they existed at the time

stances as These into the contract.

parties entered position. support

cases do not Lake’s regarding how to is silent a contract option may exer- option, an

exercise optionor by the final by notifying

cised tendering option clause and

date a reasonable time

performance within here, as in We hold that

thereafter. proper

Matcher, gave and Dale Maxwell to Lake performance tendered

notice and time, thereby properly a reasonable

within re-

exercising option. re- the trial court’s

verse judge to the trial

mand with instructions specific performance of the contract

order attorney’s to determine a reasonable and Dale.

fee to be awarded to Maxwell are taxed to Lake.

Costs

Reversed and remanded. Rita

Eddie CORTEZ and Cortez

Individually and d/b/a

Agency, Appellants, LAW PRACTICE OF

UNAUTHORIZED

COMMITTEE, BAR OF STATE

TEXAS, Appellee.

No. 05-84-00072-CV. Appeals

Court

Dallas.

May 1984.

Rehearing July 1984. Denied

knowledge performing in certain services pertaining The trial immigration. court granted judg- motion for the committee’s notwithstanding ment the verdict and en- permanent injunction against tered a Cortezes.

In their point, first the Cortezes contend evidence raised an issue fact for point, In their second Cor- question of tezes contend that what acts of law is for constitute point, their third the Cortezes in holding contend that the trial court erred aas matter of law that their acts and practices constituted the law. agree that the trial and conclude judgment notwithstand- verdict. reverse dissolving injunc- and render tion. operate

Mr. and and Mrs. Cortez own Agency, Cortez which consists book- keeping immigration services. The immigration Cortezes advertise their ser- fee, vices, they charge usually for which $400.00, generally publications readers. A Spanish speaking serve fair translation of one such advertisement is as follows: years

The had 35 Agency Cortez has immigration experience every kind of case. is or claims to

Neither the Cortezes be a Agency attorney. The was licensed Cortez Weed, Dallas, appellants. Allen begun in father and 1947 Mr. Cortez’s III, Bader, Dallas, appel- Bertrán T. building has been located in the same since lee. agency The at the 1952. father started of the suggestion vice-consul Mexi- STOREY, WHITHAM and Before office, recognized the can Consul’s SHUMPERT, JJ. need for this kind of service. father retired in and the Cortezes became WHITHAM, Justice. agency years involved later in case. injunction Appellee, is an This performs 1975. Mr. now book- Cortez of Law Practice Committee Unauthorized services, while his wife keeping and tax appellants, sued of the State Bar immigration primarily work handles Individually and Rita Cortez Eddie and taught her Mrs. by her father-in-law. Cor- Agency, under TEX.REV. d/b/a the Cortez nothing knew about the tez admitted she (Vernon Supp. 320a-l art. CIV.STAT.ANN. Immigration Nationality Act. 1984), engaging in acts enjoin them agency’s customers are interested in which constitute the unau- obtaining permanent residency in the Unit- law. The found thorized States, A ed for themselves others. exercised skill or opinion, nei- ‘legal 1-130. In Mr. Sauceda’s obtaining method of the status of catego- qualify completion alien’ is to under one of the nor ther selection ‘preferences.’ ‘preference’ A ries of deals judgment. As requires 1-130 eligibility by alien’s rela- virtue of the forms, testified that to other Mr. Sauceda tionship citizen or with United States inquire further into the back- merely these ques- Mrs. permanent resident. require ground of the alien and did not *3 they and determined if tioned customers legal judgment. in- qualified preference for a under the hand, the committee’s ex- On the other did, they on certain structions forms. witness, Foster, con- pert presented Mr. a filling she the customer in out the aided trary view. Mr. Foster testified that ser- forms, it. Mrs. and told them where to file vices such as those rendered the Cortez normally Cortez testified that there were Agency require legal would skill and (Peti- completed: to be 1-130 forms knowledge. particular, Mr. Foster testi- Classify tion to Status of Alien Relative for legal exercise skill in fied that one must Visa); Immigration G-325A Issuance simply deciding or not to file an whether Information); (Pe- (Biographical and 1-485 directly 1-130. This conflicts with the Additionally, Acquire Residency). to tition expressed, viewpoint which Mr. Sauceda helped prepare various other Mrs. Cortez namely, only way the 1-130 is the to relating immigration matters. forms to begin immigration process. Mr. Foster example, occasionally helped pre- For she that selection of other further testified (Petition Prefer- pare Classify the 1-140 to knowledge. requires legal forms skill and Alien on the of Profes- ence Status of Basis is re- legal Mr. Foster testified that skill testified, Occupation). sion or She how- quired to determine how much should be ever, she did not make the determina- forms, in the various while Mr. disclosed required tion whether the alien the 1-130 the form is Sauceda testified that unless relative) (preference on I- based a or the out, Immigration and completely filled (preference job), based because reject it. Naturalization Service will the 1-140 was initiated the alien’s em- ployer approved by Department object did not The committee week, reaching her. Labor before Twice charge the follow- court’s which submitted attorney a licensed at came to his rent- law jury without ing special sole issue to the provided by agency free office to offer explanatory instruction: legal needing advice to their customers it. you preponderance find from a Do prepared by He did not review the files Agency has the evidence that the Cortez represent agen- did Mrs. Cortez and requir- given advice or rendered service cy. agency him referred customers to knowledge ing legal skill and the use deportation pro- to handle such matters as interviewing persons advising ceedings legal and for advice and counsel. peti- as to whether or not to file a them parties experts qualified called as Both Immigration application tion or under n expert, attorneys at law. The Cortezes’ Act secure and Naturalization a bene- Sauceda, opinion testified that in his Mr. client fit for the client or relative of the re- Mrs. Cortez was not services require a careful determination which legal knowledge. quiring the use of facts, conclusions and conse- cross-examination, Mr. Sauceda disa- Upon quences involved? greed the characterization of the form with jury answered “we do not.” attorneys say petition 1-130 as a “as would impression of first Tex- This is a case Mr. Sauce- to start an action a lawsuit.” dealing the Texas cases with as. None of is much also testified that the 1-130 da practice of have ad- the unauthorized law a will or other docu- different from immigra- question of whether dressed the requires appropriate or “art- ment which by the provided such as those tion services legal judgment legal language and ful” practice of law. constitute the only form to since there is one standardized any reported in Texas that is Nor has immigration process start advertisement, might indi- decided the Cortez elsewhere been found which has law, province whether it is within the cate the jury acts or judge or of the to characterize referral of its customers alleged services attorney needing legal advice to a licensed Thus, error, points under the we must law, might negate practice of question decide whether there can be a fact Therefore, in a case such as law. and, so, jury if case, judicial we conclude that the an issue for whether the evidence raised find- decision-making process requires fact the Cortezes en- to determine whether First, there can be a we consider whether Under our gaged in the law. begin question fact necessary system, must make the practice understanding this law: findings. generally understood According to the judicial “the Pointing to the words *4 law, practice the of it em- definition of committee, nevertheless, branch,” in- the and preparation pleadings the of braces is one of law for the question sists that the special of papers other incident to actions pursuant to TEX.REV.CIV.STAT. management and the of proceedings, § 320a-l, 19(a) (Vernon Supp. ANN. art. proceedings on behalf such actions and 1984). reads: That statute judges in courts. How- of clients before Act, practice this the purposes For of ever, of is not confined practice the law of preparation of law embraces fact, In to cases conducted court. papers incident to pleadings and other practice any capa- portion of the of major special proceedings and the actions of done outside lawyer consists of work ble proceed- actions and management of the in- practice of law of the courts. judges in ings on behalf of clients before in court in only appearance not

volves services rendered out of courts as well as litigation, also servic- with but connection court, or including giving of advice court, of and includes es rendered out requiring of service rendering of giving advice or the of knowledge, or such legal legal the use of skill requiring the use of any service will, contract, preparing as a or other knowledge, preparing skill or such a instrument, will, or other instrument, contract un- legal effect of which facts and legal effect of which under the and conclusions involved der the facts carefully involved must be conclusions This defi- carefully determined. must be determined. not de- exclusive and does nition is not power Practice Commit Davies v. Unauthorized. prive judicial branch Texas, 431 S.W.2d Bar tee the State under this Act and authority both and 1968, 590, (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler to determine adjudicated cases — n.r.e.). ref d and acts not enu- services whether other may Act constitute merated in this long hard at have looked and ours). (emphasis as to the acts and undisputed practice facts the trial of the Cortezes. Unlike view, are com- judge In both our certainty court, say that we cannot with judicial branch.” Conse- ponents of “the use of require “the those services 320a-l, that article quently, we conclude Davies, knowledge.” § 19, judge alone mandate that a does not certainty that saywe 593. Nor can Therefore, hold that ar- we decide. should practices] the acts and legal effect “the [of § 320a-l, render the does not ticle carefully determined.” must be for the court. one of law question that We conclude at 593. construing prohib acts are what does undisputed evidence present case the comprehen ited, impossible to define it is matter of law holding as a permit not a law and each sively practices of the Cortezes acts and that the facts. particular own decided on its must be For exam practice of law. constituted the Com- Practice v. Unauthorized weigh evidence of Palmer the need to ple, consider any less mittee the State Bar of fact because not become one lawyers jurors are are not. judges — Houston writ). Cases from [14th Dist.] We conclude that the trial court jurisdictions suggest other in a situa rendering judgment notwithstand present question tion such as the the facts ing the verdict the basis that law of what constitutes only a undisputed and remained there were question a This should be for the That the of law the courts. question way: has this suggestion expressed been always elimi undisputed are does not facts criteri- development any practical right finding. to a reason nate the fact determining on for constitutes the what or minds can draw different inferences able law, application as well as the facts, fact undisputed from a conclusions criterion, closely related of such must be Commercial Standard presented. is issue purposes attorneys are Davis, Insurance Co. 134 Tex. occupants licensed as the exclusive (1940). We conclude that However, their field. what is difficult present could draw case reasonable minds question demanding the doubtful of law inferences different or conclusions mind is not of a application trained follows, we so undisputed facts. It by comprehension to be measured hold, question that there is legal mind, a trained but emphasize, jury in the case. We understanding pos- which is thereof however, holding reach this under lay- reasonably intelligent sessed the facts of the case. We do man who reasonably familiar with *5 in may there be a case hold that never similar transactions. undisputed as a the evidence shows § Attorney and (1980) Client 7 C.J.S. 29 person engaged in matter of law that a was v. Con (emphasis added); Gardner 862 See, Davies, 431 e.g., of law. practice the 468, way, 234 Minn. 788, 794 48 N.W.2d S.W.2d at 592. Agran (1951); Shapiro, v. 127 Cal. 807, Sup. 619, (1954). App.2d 273 P.2d 626 Next, the evi we consider whether Furthermore, involving in the cases jury. We dence raised an issue for the medicine, Texas unauthorized of that have concluded jury court has held that it is for the to in minds different reasonable could draw practicing the decide whether defendant is undisput from the ferences or conclusions State, medicine. Robertus v. 119 Tex. hold, follows, It so evidence. and we ed 370, 595, (1931) (ques 45 Crim. S.W.2d 597 for the that such evidence raised an issue chiropractor was tion of whether defendant expert jury. jury the also heard While medicine” “practicing was a conclusion opinion read as testimony, this is not to be decide). respect jury to With testimony itself holding expert that medicine, rule general for do not an issue raised stated as has been follows: expert testimony can used to that hold prosecution practicing medicine In where a fact issue in a situation create healing specific branch arts some different minds could draw reasonable authority, a license or it is without undis from the inferences or conclusions decide, jury to where the evidence puted evidence. sufficient. however, expert testimony, § 28 Physicians Surgeons, C.J.S. 70 in once properly admitted was therefore, (1951) conclude, at 929. We undisputed raised jury issue was handed in judicial system even must be rule, peculiarly general As a it is evidence. Judges, lawyers, approach. as former its weigh jury to province of the within chal- may qualified feel characterize to of ex judgment opinion evidence involving prac- in a lenged conduct Blank Co. v. Refining Octane Oil perts. law, yet expertise admit lack tice Co., 117 Implement enship-Antilley regulated are con- professions other where 885, Nevertheless, question does 886 cerned. — Eastland 1938, writ). 549, province berg, (Tex.Civ.App.— no It is within the 604 S.W.2d 1980, jury expert writ); to decide which witness Waco no Glass v. Great South Airlines, should be credited. 247, American Co., ern Insurance 170 S.W.2d Life States, 180, Inc. v. United 418 F.2d 1943, 249 (Tex.Civ.App. writ — Galveston (5th Cir.1969). Therefore, jury’s it was the w.o.m.). Ordinarily, ref’d in the absence of prerogative credit the case to exempting governmental a statute unit testimony of Mr. Sauceda over the testimo costs, payment of court it is liable ny jury Mr. Foster. chose to draw just litigant. other Reun as Childs v. the same conclusions from the facts as Mr. Bank, 466, (Tex.Civ. ion them, specifically, Sauceda drew from n.r.e.); see, App. ref’d writ — Dallas the Cortezes exercised no (Tex.Civ. State, 500 S.W.2d 682 Smith immigration judgment performing their writ)— App. Corpus Christi — ignoring services. the answer of the (court’s judgment operated adjudge jury, we conclude that the trial court en action, against costs State a disbarment upon province croached matter; though even it was silent on the proper rehearing, right we hold that it was and on State waived complain to submit the issue to the and error to to retax untime its motion was follows, disregard findings. It ly). exempting its and we the com We find no statute hold, so that the trial court erred in render- payment of court costs. mittee from Cf. notwithstanding judgment Dallas, the verdict County Dallas v. Yellow Cab holding Inc., and in as a matter of law that the (Tex.Civ.App 573 S.W.2d 44 . —East acts and constitut- n.r.e.), ref’d stat land ed the taxing prohibited ute of costs. judgment of the trial We reverse assessing costs For cases dissolving court and render entities, governmental or its see the State permanent injunction. trial court’s Antonio, 643 City Kierstead v. San (Tex.1982); Coun Parker Rehearing On Motion For Co., Spindletop ty v. Oil & Gas rehearing, In its motion for the commit- Worth *6 — Fort point 1981), tee asserts of error part part, and rev’d aff'd taxing against costs it it is ex- because (Tex.1982); Reyna, S.W.2d 765 empt payment Although of costs. 553; American Insurance Combined authority the committee cites no and makes Hillsboro, City Co. argument point, no under this we assume writ ref’d — Waco an in- exemption the committee claims n.r.e.); Stephenville, 206 City Pierce v. strumentality of the State. — Eastland 1947, writ); Glass, 249; 170 S.W.2d at no and af TEX.R.CIY.P. 448 before (Tex.Civ. State, Ibanez v. 1, 1984, pro April ter amendment effective 1938, writ); App. Paso Norwood v. — El by “in cause reversed vides that (Tex. Taylor County, 93 S.W.2d Appeals, appellant shall Court [Civil] dism’d). Ac Civ.App. — Eastland against the be entitled to an execution ... that the committee is cordingly, we hold ap- appellee for costs occasioned such liable for the court costs provides that peal_” TEX.R.CIV.P. 131 All in the trial court and in this case. costs party “the successful to a suit shall recover are taxed the committee. therein, adversary all costs incurred of his rehearing motion for The committee’s provided.” except where otherwise overruled. Therefore, costs were prevailed. against the committee based assessed established rule that where well litigant, courts as a it

State enters the any other

places itself on the same basis as

litigant. Reyna Texas v. Gold- State of