*1 pur- preference right struction SOUTHERN ALKALI CORPORATION v. 5, supra. This provisions section DISMUKES. it was follows: “That reads as resolution is now Legislature, the intention of No. 9984. public Legislature the intention Appeals of Texas. San by provid- occupied land mistake school Antonio. to the occu- 5 be sold ed in said Section 24, occupant March which such at the same 1937. pant tq pay adjoining his paid or contracted Rehearing April 21, Denied 1937. thought good faith which he tract and of part, land public school such and is not it was not further declared purchasing privilege of intended limited, subject abridged, shall such land be provision other or burdened with law, except pre-existing Act of said 4.” of said the reservations Section attempts Clearly this resolution by Chap a resolution. amend a statute clearly expressed the intention of ter 271 for the lease provide Legislature the only within five lands situated of school well. The producing gas oil or miles of declare that section 5 seeks to resolution abridged, limit to be so was not intended ed, subject to, such or burdened A cannot be must be act. statute provision of the resolution. amended amended publication re-enactment by an act or bill length, and Governor. subject power of the to the veto 3, 29, 30, 35 and sections Article Texas. Constitution held that the land con- we have Since only, troversy subject to lease all right questions preference as to the pred- warrantors or appellants their immaterial. Nor title became ecessors do any right to attack the appellants have appellees. Such is a matter for leases State, in no manner attacked and it has applications therefor. leases or the such will judgment of the be

Affirmed.

On Motion rehearing been held on This case has Supreme a decision Court

pending Caples Coles, 14, 173, April rehearing denied decision sustained on the that lands situated with court in five oil well miles of a subject and were from sale withdrawn lease only. over-

ruled.

Overruled.

reduced, and was therefore anxious that proceeds the land be leased so that applied upon therefrom could be the mort- gagee’s Appellee claim. knew mortgage company’s desire, and com- that pany’s agent try had asked buyer lease, find a agreed for the delivery facilitate if appellee succeeded selling it. In that connection requested, refused, and the mission of a “was representing Martindale Mortgage Company as in at- a tempting to effect a sale of mineral interest controversy.” involved The refusal to submit that issue is com- plained of in first We conclude the trial did not err refusing to submit that is Appellant pleaded sue. nothing a eral denial appellee’s petition, was, effect, appellant employed appellee as a broker to the mineral involved, interest agreed him, Holt, Johns, McCampbell & & (cid:127) if successful in procuring interest, Snyder, Davis, Corpus M. all of Jesse cent, per commission of pur Christi, appellant. price. claim that also Sidney Chandler, Corpus Christi, P. acted in the transaction as a broker for seller, acting while capacity, like in contravention of a fa SMITH, Chief Justice. principle public policy, miliar consti brought by action was B. W. Dis- suit, tuted an defense affirmative against Corpora- mukes Southern Alkali pleaded party and should have been tion to recover a real estate broker’s com- relying upon it. The fact relied mission for procuring corporation would rebut the facts of mineral interest in a certain tract of case, but showed an reason land owned one Breckenridge, and why recover, appellee should not county. situated in Nueces Dismukes re- should specifically pleaded have been covered, jury trial, in a corpora- order to entitle to introduce evi appealed. tion has jury finding dence and elicit thereon. Byrne (Tex.Civ.App.) v. 162 S. found, among things, Jacobs 8; Geyser Sharp Ice Co. (Tex.Civ. v. through its agent, S. Mas- App.) 87 S.W. Nixon, employed ton appellee to secure gas royalty por- unleased Moreover, the evidence did not land, tion of said and that the efforts of requested submission of warrant were “a cause” of the pretense There is issue. in the evi purchase and said ap- interest dence or large, record at appel nor does pellant. cent, parties agreed per that 10 here, contend had purchase price of 'said in- mortgage contract with the company to “proper terest broker, was a fee” to the a sale Breckenridge’s (a effect in event he Appellee recovered. land, party) or that he awarded that basis. discretion, from party, either affecting appears from the record that Martin- or terms purchase; of the sale or Mortgage Company dale held a lien upon or he was to receive a commission land, very to secure a the mortgage company, substantial or from the debt; past debt was seller, due and sale, event he effected a or that mortgage company was threatening fully fore- informed of the closure, unless the debt was substantially relation of and the mortgage n company. show- of “the” In the absence of such the word “a” of the word instead properly jury, re- in view of ing, could not have misled the A. Byrne Jacobs, supra; T. fused. the definition of the cause,” term (Tex. appended Hill & Patton & issue. Son v. Schwartz *3 jury was re- Civ.App.) 160 Under that definition the quired the sole to find that was appel- error assignment In its of second in procuring cause order to' answer the trial complains of the refusal of the question affirmative, in the and that re- appellant’s' judge submit to quirement of the satisfied the law case. charge jury the to con- instructing “not Appellant argues permit that “To testimony any your sider in deliberations finding to recover a mere that he you on trial of this introduced before the or, cause, procuring in other was ‘a’ words, I. relating case between to conversations the procuring one of causes could Keys W. and B. Dismukes.” easily lead to the result that several in- appellant, through jury The found that dependent. brokers entitled would each be Keys, employed appellee to Judge I. W. out of transac- commission. mineral interest in the merit, argument tion.” The is without Keys Judge was further found question in the since there was authority not representing with any of this broker’s activities purchase it of negotiate transaction, any nor of such evidence The evidence showed interest. activities, nor is there evidence of Judge Keys numerous conversations intervening independent procuring . matter, only in the not with appellee’s causes other than activities. He company appel- (cid:127)separately, but only purporting the was the to act in Nixon, concededly agent, lant’s authorized negotiations, only jury ques- participated negotiations and in all the tion was whether his efforts led to the purchase prop- culminating in the jury rationally The sale. could not have erty. requested instruction would The question the understood form the be- excluded conversations anything mitted to mean else. We over- Much, tween and assignment rule all, testimony if not was admissible Appellant makes further the case, bearing upon the whole objection eral to the form of said correctly judge trial order the refused to ground “does upon the it whole of it stricken. liability.” present true of the is- trial submitted a embraced in objection, jury sue to the “the efforts assignment proposition under the third of of” “were a cause of error, general is invoke considera too sale,” etc., the and that connection tion, and is overruled. charged jury ‘procuring the “that cause’ fourth In its and last cause, is efficient neces- one that that the find of error contends sarily operation, the other causes in sets pro ing alleged the result and for which purchase curing cause of the recovery sought, and a cause is whether question “against depend or remote does not proximate is great preponderance of evidence way in the upon the closeness alone thereby.” unsupported We have things doing certain occurred. in which upon that the evidence issue and examined efficient, adequate being cause That an that, since it is such reasona conclude un- be deemed true cause found must might its effect and minds differ as to ble cause not incidental to some other less thereon, different conclusions reach of it is to have shown it but set aside is without court result al- intervened between thereon, jury’s finding leged.” finding. approving that trial court complains the form Appellant judgment phrase the use of the issue because Motion for On cause,” pro instead of “the cause,” “places curing a less burden its motion original questions the statement plaintiff and a more burden the upon onerous opinion required by the effect that conversa- defendant than Judge Keys, opinion that the use tions between law.” We are propo- appellant’s second complained of sition, presence of had in the In that statement agent, Mr. Nixon. lant’s present

we erred. Mr. Nixon The error of said conversations. decision, how- becomes immaterial ever, conclusion now

be stated. did We held that upon appellant’s refusing,

not err in mo tion, to strike the

wherein he two conversations with related Keys, agreed, in which the latter in behalf of procured commission if he here involved. motion its appellant vigorously questions holding our ap which is raised in pellant’s proposition. We record, reviewed the and con clude that that erroneously admitted timely objection, over it was technical error part of the trial judge to refuse to strike testimony, upon appellant’s motion at reviewing thereof. But the conclusion find that in its of facts we the statement appellee, appellant cross-examination substantially him elicited of, complained testimony as that here

thereby rendering harmless erroneous its upon direct examination. admission

Appellant’s overruled. v. BOWEN et al.

WALLINGFORD

No. 4735. Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

April 5, 1937. Sewell, Follett,

Sewell & lant. Payne, Perryton, Gray, and E. C. John appellees.' Higgins,

o.f