Cotten v. Parmley

Court of Appeals of Texas

Cotten v. Parmley

63 S.W.2d 1118

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 12, 1933

DocketNo. 2887

StatusPublished

This text of 63 S.W.2d 1118 (Cotten v. Parmley) 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

Cotten v. Parmley, 63 S.W.2d 1118 (Tex. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

PELPHREY, Chief Justice.

This is a suit by appellee to recover for medical services performed for several clients of appellant and for giving expert testimony on'the trial of the cases where they were plaintiffs.

Appellee alleged an express contract on the part of appellant to pay for such services, and his evidence supported such -allegation. Appellee denied both in his pleading and proof such an agreement.

The trial court, in submitting special issues, asked the jury to find whether or not the services were performed at the request of appellant. .Appellant did not dispute the fact that he had requested the services to be performed for his clients, but did emphatically deny that he had ever agreed to be personally responsible therefor.

The controlling question in the case, as made by both the pleading and the proof, was whether appellant had. expressly agreed to .pay appellee for the services.

This issue was not submitted, and the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded.

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

PELPHREY, Chief Justice.

This is a suit by appellee to recover for medical services performed for several clients of appellant and for giving expert testimony on'the trial of the cases where they were plaintiffs.

Appellee alleged an express contract on the part of appellant to pay for such services, and his evidence supported such -allegation. Appellee denied both in his pleading and proof such an agreement.

The trial court, in submitting special issues, asked the jury to find whether or not the services were performed at the request of appellant. .Appellant did not dispute the fact that he had requested the services to be performed for his clients, but did emphatically deny that he had ever agreed to be personally responsible therefor.

The controlling question in the case, as made by both the pleading and the proof, was whether appellant had. expressly agreed to .pay appellee for the services.

This issue was not submitted, and the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 S.W.2d 1118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cotten-v-parmley-texapp-1933.