City Grocery Co. v. Moore Grocery Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

City Grocery Co. v. Moore Grocery Co.

135 S.W.2d 151

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 7, 1939

DocketNo. 3563.

StatusPublished

This text of 135 S.W.2d 151 (City Grocery Co. v. Moore Grocery Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City Grocery Co. v. Moore Grocery Co., 135 S.W.2d 151 (Tex. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

WALKER, Chief Justice.

The controlling facts in this case are decided in our opinion, Parker et al. v. Moore Grocery Company, Inc., Tex.Civ.App., 107 S.W.2d 1083, 1084, reversing the judgment of the lower court entered on an instructed verdict, on the ground that F. K. Parker’s authority to execute the note “was a question of fact for the jury.” On return of the mandate, appellee dismissed its cause of action on the docket of the district court, and filed this suit in the ■county court of San Augustine county upon the note and letter set out in our opinion cited above. On trial to a jury, judgment was again entered in favor of appel-lee on an instructed verdict. Again we must say that the authority of F. K. Parker to execute the note and letter was a fact Issue for the jury.

By a plea in abatement, appellants allege that at 'the time appellee dismissed its suit on the docket of the district court there was pending in answer to appellee’s ■cause of action appellants’ cross action, -putting in issue the facts in controversy in this case, and their liability to appellee. .Appellants’ proof did not sustain their plea in abatement. That issue can be developed further on another trial.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the lower court is reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WALKER, Chief Justice.

The controlling facts in this case are decided in our opinion, Parker et al. v. Moore Grocery Company, Inc., Tex.Civ.App., 107 S.W.2d 1083, 1084, reversing the judgment of the lower court entered on an instructed verdict, on the ground that F. K. Parker’s authority to execute the note “was a question of fact for the jury.” On return of the mandate, appellee dismissed its cause of action on the docket of the district court, and filed this suit in the ■county court of San Augustine county upon the note and letter set out in our opinion cited above. On trial to a jury, judgment was again entered in favor of appel-lee on an instructed verdict. Again we must say that the authority of F. K. Parker to execute the note and letter was a fact Issue for the jury.

By a plea in abatement, appellants allege that at 'the time appellee dismissed its suit on the docket of the district court there was pending in answer to appellee’s ■cause of action appellants’ cross action, -putting in issue the facts in controversy in this case, and their liability to appellee. .Appellants’ proof did not sustain their plea in abatement. That issue can be developed further on another trial.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the lower court is reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 S.W.2d 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-grocery-co-v-moore-grocery-co-texapp-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack