(after stating the case as above).
It will be noted on looking to the, statement ■above that the undertaking of appellee E.. L. Pinkston which appellant sought to specifically enforce was to deliver a lease on .the 108 acres of land to the bank, and that the undertaking of the bank was to deliver such lease to appellant when he paid it' $16,200 for said E. L. Pinkston. Appellant is not in the attitude of contending here, and, in view of the fact that the lease in question. wqs never in its possession, reasonably could hot contend, that the bank incurred any liability to him because of its failure- to deliver the instrument to him. His contention -here is that the trial court should have rendered (i) judgment in his favor against appellees E. L. Pinkston and his wife, requiring them to deliver the lease to him, on his complying with its terms, and (2) judgment in his favor canceling the lease from the Pinkstons to ap-pellee Warner-Quinlan Company.
It is plain, we think, that appellant was not entitled to any relief as against Mrs. *1070Pinkston, for it was not pretended in tlie evidence that-she bad ever entered into any kiná of a contract with him. It is also plain, we think, that appellant was not entitled to the relief he prayed for as against the Warner-Quinlan Company, unless he had a contract enforceable against the Pinkstons leasing the land to him before they leased same to said company. As just stated above, apipellant never had a contract of any kind with Mrs. Pinkston, and we have found nothing in the record showing a right in him to have her contract .with the Warner-Quinlan Company canceled.
• It follows from what has been said that we think appellant is not entitled to complain of the judgment so far as it was in favor of the appellees other than E. L. Pinkston. And we think he also is not entitled to complain of the judgment in that respect. The lease in question was as much the contract of Mrs. Pinkston as it was the contract of her husband, and, we think it was not error for the court to refuse to require him to deliver her contract to appellant. The parties seem to have treated the transaction between them as one in which, to be effective, it was necessary for Mrs. Pinkston to join, and we have found nothing in the record indicating to the contrary.
Another reason for refusing to disturb the judgment lies in the fact that the trial court had a right to conclude from the evidence before him that appellant failed to comply, and was unable to comply, with his undertaking to pay the $16,200 he undertook to pay the Pinkstons for the lease.
There is no error in the judgment, and it is affirmed.