Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/Daugherty v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.

Daugherty v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.

221 S.W.2d 928, 1949 Tex. App. LEXIS 1993
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 22, 1949
DocketNo. 9809
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 221 S.W.2d 928 (Daugherty v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.) 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
Daugherty v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R., 221 S.W.2d 928, 1949 Tex. App. LEXIS 1993 (Tex. Ct. App. 1949).

Opinion

HUGHES, Justice.

This suit is for damages for breach of contract. The only question presented is whether there was a contract to breach. The matter is to be determined solely from the allegation of the petition of appellant, William Daugherty, Jr., since the trial court, having sustained special exceptions to this petition, dismissed appellant’s suit upon his refusal to amend his pleading.

The material allegations of appellant’s petition are:

“Plaintiff says that on or about the 15th day of May, 1947, and prior thereto he was in the business of buying, selling and processing grain at Bartlett, Texas, and offering the same for sale at various points in and out of Texas. He further says that he wanted to build a grain elevator in connection with his business at Bartlett, Texas, and consulted G. C. McDonald, the -local agent of defendant at Bartlett, Texas, with reference to leasing ground and trackage from the defendant and along the defendant’s right-of-way between Clark and Bell Streets in Bartlett, Texas. He further says that the ground and trackage was necessary in the operation of the elevator for loading grain from the elevator into cars for transportation over the- defendant’s railroad to points of delivery.,

“3. On or about July 25, 1947, plaintiff made written application to defendant railroad company for the desired lease of ground and trackage necessary to serve the elevator which plaintiff proposed to construct. The application being in words and figures as follows:

[929]*929

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

Related

Opinion No.
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1982
Edmunds v. Houston Lighting & Power Company
472 S.W.2d 797 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1971)
Parker v. Meneley
235 P.2d 101 (California Court of Appeal, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
221 S.W.2d 928, 1949 Tex. App. LEXIS 1993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daugherty-v-missouri-kansas-texas-r-texapp-1949.