*1
SOUTHWESTERN
bеcause
consent to
in 37
vided for
fying
cause
was in
lease for more
ing.
Tex. Civ.
ing,
risdiction. Under
Union
items,
in
veyed
ease we think we
for a
below the
ferent
ceptions
amend,
the cause.
there does not
should be reduced
cause
to
the
reference
failure
crop
cause for want of cause
clusions,
tion
сeptions
sufficiency
sideration.
cation
Dec.
lease
ing.
Contracts
lands
Frauds,
Frauds,
a court of
Where a
Where an
Under Rev. St. art.
LEWIS BROS. v.
petition
general
days,
the
performance
not in
of action.
except
aá to
damages
items of
Telegraph
for more than one
to dismiss
of
provision as
1920.
statute
statute
jurisdiction
difficulty
fall of
<§=>237(1)
Reasoner v.
these
demurrer and
sufficiency
the cash
competent jurisdiction,
this
appear
held not
and the written contract
1103, providing
damage alleged
correct
be,
be a bar
writing,
S. W. 8.
not stated
damages
allegations
than
of the cash
allegations,
specific
the circumstances of
1921.)
аssigning
one
after
refusal
for the sale
<®=>44(4)—
<©=>131 —Parol
to time
plaintiff alleged invalid.
—Extension
year 1916.
one
exceptions
cause for
one
obtaining
of
3965, requiring
Arnold,
year
a sale
reverse and remand
of a lease for more
G.,
amount recoverable immaterial,
sustaining
resulting
year
reason for
any special
(2)
in the
Denied Jan.
of
plant
assignment
C.
lease as to time
payment
dismissing the
be made
recovery,
foregoing
and also
Assignment
action,
allegations in
to be in writ-
shall be con-
paragraph of
plaintiff
want
the lessor’s
inbe writ- provided
invalid
special ex
Coker,
a business
a business
S. F.
sustaining
petition
et al.
or modi-
Western
of those
the dif
аmount
modifi-
wheat
excep
leases
with-
with-
writ-
good
con-
aof
pro-
even
Ry.,
be-
ex
ju
into
by appellees
vided
within 37
April 11,
sale
their
owners.
sion of the
the
paid
sees
terior
came known
ber
Tex.
material
contract with S. G. and W. Parks
ment
court:
terms of which Lewis
tiffs,
Tyler, for
cluding
of a
ulated
J. R.
damages
admission of evidence of
and
tion
4.Appeal
payment
ers,
sion.
the mutual
contract
in
for such
to
tained did not
Marsh &
not in issue held immaterial.
Action
HODGES,
Hanson & Butler and
sell
Where a
1, 1918,
it not
above-mentioned
different from that
building
June,
and defendants
Warren, Judge.
for a
damages
assignment
This contract
evidence
Lewis Bros.
for a
in case of
being
$1,000 against
-Tyler, Tex.,
for the seller’s
payment
On Motion fоr
form District
contract with the
being necessary
equipped
the consideration for the
the cash
Mcllwaine,
assignment
Tyler.
building
moving picture show,
picture
contract for
cash,
J. This
buyers
D.
situated
error
two-story
from the date
installments.
require
found
agreement extending
trial
lease contract
the “Electric Palace.” On
thе written consent of
R. Pendleton
because
of
nonperformance to the
trial before court
month.
10of
payment
moving picture show,
<§=>1054(1)
the breach
expressed
a
sued
property,
thereafter
of forfeit
appeal
entered into
the lease or sublet
Bros.,
expressed.
Judgment
the substance
lease contract with
building
T.
consideration
Tyler,
nonperformance,
years
rearranged
the lessor’s
together
appellants as
filed
new
for
It was
appellees for
sale
was to be
had not
parol agreement
desiring to sell
is from
unexpired
Bulloch,
Smith.
in the
money and for
was also
—Admission
leased from
consideratiоn;
entered
Affirmed.
of a business
took
situated
for
a contract
which be-
considera-
a written
on matter
payment
sale
Septem-
divided
the in-
posses-
consent
others
plain-
exten-
all of
court,,
judg-
stip-
trial
pro-
half
into
buy-
les-
in-
ob-
of
KEY-NUMBER,
Key-Numbered’Digests
cases
and Indexes
<Ss»For
*2
BBOS.
LEWIS
(227 3.W.)
organ-
plaintiffs
there was
appellees
thеmselves
conference
the
bound
and
ize
agreed
corporation
the
it
in accordance and
defendants in which was
themselves
up
fully
(one
appellees)
Texas,
that
and
Wilkerson
of the
with
with
the laws
part
go
that N.
capital
$20,000. A
Lewis should
Beaumont
stock of
Fitzgerald,
person,
arranged that
Parks in
and it was
J. W.
delivеred to
stock
to he
morning
security
Tyler, Tex.,
leave
the
should
of
unpaid
as collateral
Bros,
May
departure
day,
26. On
that
Lewis
balance due
train,
agreed
ground
Lewis, upon
it
that each
the
the
It was further
contract.
impossible
leave,
go.
Fitz- was
parties
him to
with J.
failed
of the
would
Beaumont,
Wilkerson,
$1,000
however,
gerald
as
in cash
went on to
trustee the
sum
person,
money,
saw Parks
him
event the
and
with
and in the
discussed
forfeit
the first
pay
transferring
part,
appellees,
fail to
the matter of
should
the
Wil-
the
lease.
proposed
stipulated,
other- kerson then
and
that he and his as-
the amount
Lewis
give
guaranty
security
contract,
fully perform
sociates would
within
Parks
their
other
wise
$2,000
personal
days
their
then the
date
however,
agreement,
money
property of of the lease
contract. No
forfeit
become
should
hand,
appel- was then reached
On
if the
with Parks. On
31st
Bros.
other
Lewis
May following
Smith,
plaintiffs,
lees,
part,
within
one of
first
should
days
$10,000
Madden,
agent,
pay
Mrs.
he
сash stated to
Parks’
the 37
and otherwise
Lewis
offer to
contract,
per
pay
and
associates
and his
month
their
would
Parks $250
premises
four
fail
first
should
up years
$2,000put
three
and
months
then the
lease,
money
improvements
the the
would
become
make
at once
certain
forfeit
should
as
pay
maining
was further
would
leasе
and
per
the sum of
month
$275
was not to
understood that this contract
appellees,
and,
improvements
years;
cor-
five
or the
consummated unless the
years,
poration
organized
them,
be were not made within the first
procure
month
able to
building
a transfer of
telegraphed
occupied
Pal- five
That
the Electric
offer was
on the
then
day
Madden,
to Parks
In the
were unable
ace.
event the
and a tele-
Mrs.\
gram
get
day
trans-
Parks to the
the same
ac-
received
cepting
appellees,
the offer.
or to
Mrs. Madden
fer of the
corporation
notified
contemplated organ- appellees
p.
recеipt
about 12:30 m. of the
and
telegram.
izing,
p.
in contents of her
inserted
with some other clauses
About 3:20 m.
day
lease,
appellees
be bound the same
the
to
then neither
Lewis notified the
carry
carry
and
that he
tract
out the
each
further
his con-
out
expired
money put up
;
forfeit.
claim half of
as a
limit
he
disposed
May
this had
execution of
On
7th
other
prin- Upon
necessary
these and
contract
cipal representative
concluded,
a to
Lewis
here state the
wrote
as matter
of, law,
Bros., having
Parks,
Beau-
who resided at
Lewis
letter to S.
mont, giving
of the 'contract
the substance of the contract
having
requesting
days,
agreеd
Parks’
to an
sale to the
extension
having
performance,
his the time for its
the lease.
assent to
reply
agree
agreed
willing
accept
to further
that he was
cash for the
Parks intimated
defer-
payments originally
assignment,
red
to an
but referred
in the con-
Tex.,
appellees
agent,
Madden,
one
It was
sion
less
оr not a
each other.
comes
Court
tract
suppose,
Even
contract
pellees being
not an interest or estate
peals
the landlord
Article
lants’ leasehold
leasehold interest was not
for debt under an
out
sion was
of the
seizure
tract
sale of a leasehold could
assigned
assignment
there was
сould
Gro.
his
the
decided
Moser
as
tenements,
after
agreed upon
other,
longer
3965 of our latest Revised Civil
ered
a term of
quires
tract for the
cause
pellees
“No estate of inheritance
Counsel for
writing, then,
S. W
instrument in
authority
agent
there
provision
quoted.
year without her written concurrence.
Co.,
conveying part
with the
conveying
of the Third
alienate.
the evidence
contracts for the
held
statute,
were not able to
for the
is as
the consent of
of the wife
based.upon the terms of the statute
thereunto
Tucker,
were that
is
husband
In
that a
landlord
called
more than one
shall be
have been
or
party
a contract to
that he could
than
also
in the written
for an
Justice
subletting
subletting
for the
purchase
follows:
of this
60 R.
subletting
Dority Dority,
case
debts
instance,
interest
In a
term,
to
disposing
purchaser
L. A.
conveyance
authorized
clearly
could lease the
of the second
alters their relations
conveyed
leasehold was
District held
be considered
execution.
entire term must be
Williams,
referred to
proposition that
article.
landlord. The
the Court of
it had been
consent of Parks
the landlord.
the first
refer
writing.
subscribed and
which
the tenant.
statute forbids
that instead of
which the landlord
determine
acquire
shows
year,
not,
the term
or
case,
at an
premises,
from one
reason,
freehold,
be declared
26 S. W.
to the case
property until
who rendered
of land
of five
property
comes
writing.”
in
The reasons
tenant with
lessee
Copeland
was that
Statutes
same,
tenant, un
in
no
tenant be
in
term than
If the con
subject1
the entire
for a sub
lands and
originally 1103 a written
execution
provision
thе deci
separate
Supreme
whether
must be
question
the con
writing.
interest
seizure
conclu
Let us
Article
Hence
or
appel
deliv-
or
alone
con
Ap
an-
ap-
*3
ap-
re
by
by
parties expressed
statement
ing assignments
might
ignation
formance was
only
which were
that,
ed
validity
challenge
Co.,
agreement. Caрles v. Port Huron E. & T.
under the
consideration. The mutual
finding of the court that an
agreed upon.
Adams
have
was insufficient to sustain a
p.L.
form;
provision
court that there
cient,
leasehold interest
extend the
eration. The statement of facts discloses
main
provisions
length
agreement be modified
ance was not a featurе essential to the valid
ity
of the articles referred
ment
in
of a definite
the contract of the
ation which must
est to the
lows that a
Parks in
their
of the wife.
“The
In motion for a
We have
[3]
[2]
writing.
Mining Co.,
period,
if the evidence
be
It
leasehold
open
But
remain
hence a
parol provisions
of definite
conveyed by
is also
tо
was an interest
On Motion
order
evidence,
agreement
time
might
made in the
Hughes,
lease for more than one
in
length
here
circumstances, require any
were sufficient to
enable
carefully
simply readopted
parol
open
conveyance
period
the case under consideration
performаnce.
which
correctness
conveyance
Such interest,
to
parol
provision
contended
have been
assailed relate
is affirmed.
under the terms of
invest the
a feature assential to
be
only,
error,
appellants
of the contract had been
was without
time which that
the written
that contract
considеred
We
performance.
been an
agreement
in
or eliminated.
if otherwise
S. W.
time for its
to
rehearing appellants
otherwise
then it could
to
which,the appellees
writing.
agreement
in
that issue was suffi
writing.
and overrule them.
conclude
was not
was
original
convey
omitted, might
Lewis Bros. v. Pendleton
227 S.W. 502
Tex. App.1920Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.