
    JANSEN v. MITCHELL.
    (No. 2073.)
    '(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.
    Feb. 20, 1919.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 27, 1919.)
    1. Judgment @=>707 — Estoppel by Judgment-Binding Force on One Not Party.
    A judgment renderéd in a proceeding to which the present plaintiff was not a party is not binding on him by way of estoppel.
    2. Brokers @=>61(2) — Right to Commission —Excuse por Failuee to Convey.
    Fact that one who engaged a realty broker to sell land owned only a half interest was no justification for his failure to convey title, excusing his refusal to pay commission to the broker who procured a purchaser; he having ■stated at the time the broker was engaged that ■his title was good.
    Appeal from Titus County Court; C. E. Bryson, Special Judge.
    Action by A. S. Mitchell against H. A. Jansen. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    S. F. Caldwell, of Mt. Pleasant, for appellant.
    S. P. Pounders, of Mt. Pleasant, for appel-lee.
   HODGES, J.

The appellee, a real estate agent, sued and recovered a judgment against appellant for the sum of $220 as commissions on the sale of a tract of land. The facts show that the appellant resided in another state, and that he had an interest in a tract of land in Titus county, where the ap-pellee was engaged in the real estate business. A correspondence took place between the parties which induced the appellee to undertake the sale of a specified tract upon terms furnished. He found a purchaser willing, ready, and able' to take the land upon the terms proposed by the appellant; but the sale was not completed, because of conditions for which the appellant was responsible.

AVe think the demurrers to the plaintiff’s amended original petition were properly overruled. While the averments therein might have been more specific and more in accord with the ,rules of pleading, the petition was not fatally defective. The correspondence relied on by the appellee to constitute a contract of employment was clearly sufficient. The judgment pleaded by the appellant as an estoppel against the appellee was not binding oh the latter, as he Was not a party to that proceeding. The .fact that the appellant owned only- a half interest in the land was no defense for his failure to convey the title, as he had stated at the time appellee was engaged that his title was good. He must have known that his representations would be relied on.

The judgment is- affirmed.  