On Motion for Rehearing.
We have again carefully reviewed the record, and are still of the opinion that the rules of law enunciated are the ones which control this case; that is, that appellee can in no event recover more upon quantum meruit than the value of the lands which would have been his compensation for his services had title been perfected. Additional authorities : Weis v. Devlin, 67 Tex. 507, at page 513, 3 S. W. 726, 60 Am. Rep. 38; Hearne v. Garrett, 49 Tex. 619; Devoe v. Stewart, 32 Tex. 717; R. R. v. Shirley, 45 Tex. 355; Lamar v. Hildreth, 209. S. W. 169; Mfg. Co. v. Street et al., 196 S. W. 286; Surety Co. v. Construction Co., 182 Mo. App. 667, 166 S. W. 333; Shropshire v. Adams, 40 Tex. Civ. App. 339, 89 S. W. 448. And there is no evidence of probative force of the value of the land, or the interest which was to be the compensation for perfecting the title.
The motion is therefore overruled.