Henderson Tire & Rubber Co. v. Roberts

1 S.W.2d 510
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 8, 1927
DocketNo. 2051.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 1 S.W.2d 510 (Henderson Tire & Rubber Co. v. Roberts) 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
Henderson Tire & Rubber Co. v. Roberts, 1 S.W.2d 510 (Tex. Ct. App. 1927).

Opinion

PELPHREY, J.

This suit was filed in the Fourty-Fourth district court of Dallas county, by appellant against L. E. Roberts, A. J. Roberts, D. C. Roberts, J. A. Watson, L. E. Roberts & Co., and the Weldon Rubber Company to recover the sum of $14,000 alleged to be due upon certain trade acceptance, given by L. E. Roberts & Co., and guaranteed by L. E. Roberts, A. J. Roberts, and' J. A. Watson, and against L. B. Roberts, A. J. Roberts, J. A. Watson, and D. C. Welling, as acceptors of said trade acceptances. Appellant in its petition referred to and made a part thereof a certain contract and agreement made and entered into by and between appellant and the L. E. Roberts Company, on November 7, 1921, and a guaranty contract on the part of L. E. Roberts, A. J. Roberts, and J. A. Watson attached thereto.

J. A. Watson, D. O. Welling, A. J. Roberts, and L. E. Roberts Company in the first trial amendment pleaded that the contract between the parties was in violation of the Texas statutes against trust and monopolies (Rev. St. 1925, art. 7426 et seq.), and therefore unenforceable, and that the trade acceptances sued on were the outgrowth of such illegal contract, and therefore void. At the conclusion of the testimony the court instructed the jury to return a verdict against appellant and in favor of appellees.

Opinion.

Appellant complains of the court’s action in so instructing a verdict and contends that the amount sued for as evidenced by the trade acceptances was not affected by the agreement subsequently made between the parties.

In order that a better understanding of the questions before us may be had, we will here quote those parts of the agreement of November 7,1921, which we consider material to the issue.

“Agreement, made this 7th day of November, 1921, at the city of Buffalo, in the state of New York, between the Henderson Tire & Rubber Company, Inc., a corporation of the state of New York, hereinafter called the consignor, and L. E. Roberts Company, a corporation of the state of Texas, with a place of business at the city of Dallas, in said state, hereinafter called the consignee:

“Whereas, the consignor is engaged in the manufacture of “Eclipse” automobile tires, with its plant at the city of Columbus, in the state of Ohio, and desires to consign such “Eclipse” tires, both cord and fabric, to the consignee for sale for the account of the consignor, as hereinafter provided, and desires to give the said consignee, under the terms of such consignment, exclusive territory as hereinafter provided:

“Now therefore, in consideration of the sum of one dollar in hand paid by the consignor to the consignee and in consideration of the mutual agreements herein contained, this agreement witnesseth:

“(1) Consignor does hereby grant to consignee the exclusive light to sell during the term of this contract “Eclipse” cord and fabric tires *511 within the following described territory: All that part of the state of Texas north of the city of Austin, east of the state line, and west to the one hundred and two parallel and north to the state line. The said consignee agrees to sell said “Eclipse” tires exclusively in said territory and that during the continuance of this contract said consignee shall not carry in stock, advertise or sell tires of any other manufacture.

“(2) The exclusive territory and selling privilege herein granted to the consignee shall be operative for one year from the date hereof and shall be extended for an additional year if the consignee shall during the first year hereunder sell and dispose of $300,000.00 worth of the tires of the consignor; shall be likewise renewable for a further year if in said second year the consignee shall dispose of $350,000.00 worth of said tires, and thereafter, from year to year, if the consignee shall dispose each year of $400,-000.00 worth of said tires; and, in consideration of said exclusive privilege, the consignee agrees to carry in stock, advertise and sell, during the term of this contract, no other tires than those made by the consignor.

“(3) Pending the negotiation and execution of this contract and under date of October 24, 1921, the consignor has sold to the consignee various tires as follows, and at prices set opposite each size and style: [Here follows list of sizes, styles and prices of a quantity of tires amounting to $14,909.88], for which consignor will receive in payment thereof the trade acceptances of the consignee, which trade acceptances shall be guaranteed by individual in-dorsers of the following: J. A. Watson, L. E. Roberts and A. J. Roberts, payable one-half of the total amount in thirty days and one-half in sixty days from date of shipment of car containing said tires from Columbus, Ohio. ' The amount of such trade acceptances so given is hereby agreed shall become part of the $40,000.-00 stipulated hereinafter as the maximum credit to be allowed the consignee hereunder.

“(4) The consignor agrees to ship on consignment to the consignee such “Eclipse” cord and fabric tires as specified by consignee which quantity, however, shall at the consigned price thereof, together with other obligations of consignee to consignor, at no time exceed the maximum amount of $40,000.00. The consignee agrees to pay the transportation charges on all shipments and take said consignment shipments in stock for sale as a factor and for the account of consignor and to sell the same at not less than the following prices, which include the excise tax and shall bear no guaranty of the consignor: [Then follows list of sizes, style and prices.] The consignee agrees to sell said tires as factor as hereinafter provided, and to keep accurate account of, and turn over to consignor, the proceeds of such sales as hereinafter provided.

“(5) The consignee shall mail to the consign- or bn Monday of each week a daily sale schedule showing the serial numbers and sizes of all tires sold during the preceding week and on the last day of each month shall remit to the consignor, from the proceeds of the cash sales during the month, the amount of the consigned invoice price thereof; or, at the option of the consignee, said remittance may be made in the form of sixty-day trade acceptances bearing interest at 7 per cent., duly accepted by the consignee and indorsed by each of the- officers of said company individually; such indorsement to include J. A. Watson, D. E. Roberts and A. J. Roberts, whether or not they remain officers of the D. E. Roberts Company throughout the life of this contract ; and should any of said parties wish to sever their connections with the D. E. Roberts Company during the term of this contract, it is expressly agreed and understood that they cannot be relieved of their individual liabilities hereunder, except by providing other guarantors in their respective places which are ‘acceptable to the consignor. The consignee may sell said consigned stock to dealers, and shall report such sales weekly, and on the 1st and 15th of each month shall make up a bimonthly report of such sales and account thereof by trade acceptances payable to the consignor in sixty days, with 7 per cent, interest, each indorsed by the officers of said company individually, and to which shall be attached as collateral the accounts receivable represented by such credit sales which shall be the property of the consignor, but shall be collected by the consignee and deposited in a special bank account which shall be opened under the name ‘L. E.

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

Related

Burpee Can Sealer Co. v. Henry McDonnell Co.
75 S.W.2d 458 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1934)
Henderson Tire & Rubber Co. v. Roberts
12 S.W.2d 154 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 S.W.2d 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-tire-rubber-co-v-roberts-texapp-1927.