Hughes v. Turner

Court of Appeals of Texas

Hughes v. Turner

189 S.W. 87, 1916 Tex. App. LEXIS 984

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 26, 1916

DocketNo. 5708.

StatusPublished

This text of 189 S.W. 87 (Hughes v. Turner) 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

Hughes v. Turner, 189 S.W. 87, 1916 Tex. App. LEXIS 984 (Tex. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

MOURSUND, J.

[1,2] Cliñt V. Turner sued Ralph Hughes, W. D. Maples, and R. V. Arnold, all residents of Hardeman county, alleging that they were partners under the firm name of Hughes & Co., engaged in the business of cotton brokers, which business they had conducted in' the town of Sinton, and had bought from plaintiff 50 bales of cotton to be delivered at Sinton, Tex., on or about August 4, 1914, at the price of 12.75 cents per pound, basis middling; that plaintiff tendered said cotton on August 4th, and Hughes & Co. refused to accept the same; that on said date cotton was worth only 9%- cents per pound, basis middling; that he was compelled to sell at that price and lost $758.

Arnold failed .to answer. Maples filed a plea of privilege, and answered generally. Hughes filed a plea of privilege to be sued in Hardeman county, and subject to said plea ánswered generally, especially denying, under oath, the partnership alleged and that Arnold and Maples were his agents.

A verdict upon special issues was returned, «and judgment entered thereon -in favor of plaintiff against all the defendants for $757.77, with interest. „ Only Hughes appealed.

We conclude that under the undisputed facts the appellant’s plea of privilege should háve been sustained, and that the court erred in submitting issues relating thereto to the jury, and, upon their answers thereto, overruling said plea. The only contract in writing was constituted by confirmations of the sale and purchase. The confirmation of the sale stated that Turner had sold to *88 Hughes & Co. 50 bales of cotton f. o. b. Sin-ton, basis middling, at 12.70 cents per pound. The confirmation of purchase added nothing to the contract, but merely showed assent to the terms stated in the confirmation of sale. The obligation alleged to have been breached by Hughes was that of paying for the cotton. This obligation was not performable at Sin-ton under the terms of the written contract. We think this case is governed by the following decisions: Bomar Cotton Oil Co. v. Schubert, 145 S. W. 1193; Ogburn-Dalchau Lumber Co. v. Taylor, 59 Tex. Civ. App. 442, 126 S. W. 48; Casey v. Carr, 148 S. W. 601; McCammant v. Webb, 147 S. W. 693.

As between the plaintiff, Turner," and defendants Maples and Arnold, who have not appealed, the' judgment of the trial court will not be disturbed, but as between plaintiff and appellant Hughes it is reversed, with instructions to sustain the plea of privilege and dismiss that part of the case. Ft. Worth Horse & Mule Co. v. Smith, 149 S. W. 200; Galveston D. G. Co. v. Mitchell, 171 S. W. 278.

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

MOURSUND, J.

[1,2] Cliñt V. Turner sued Ralph Hughes, W. D. Maples, and R. V. Arnold, all residents of Hardeman county, alleging that they were partners under the firm name of Hughes & Co., engaged in the business of cotton brokers, which business they had conducted in' the town of Sinton, and had bought from plaintiff 50 bales of cotton to be delivered at Sinton, Tex., on or about August 4, 1914, at the price of 12.75 cents per pound, basis middling; that plaintiff tendered said cotton on August 4th, and Hughes & Co. refused to accept the same; that on said date cotton was worth only 9%- cents per pound, basis middling; that he was compelled to sell at that price and lost $758.

Arnold failed .to answer. Maples filed a plea of privilege, and answered generally. Hughes filed a plea of privilege to be sued in Hardeman county, and subject to said plea ánswered generally, especially denying, under oath, the partnership alleged and that Arnold and Maples were his agents.

A verdict upon special issues was returned, «and judgment entered thereon -in favor of plaintiff against all the defendants for $757.77, with interest. „ Only Hughes appealed.

We conclude that under the undisputed facts the appellant’s plea of privilege should háve been sustained, and that the court erred in submitting issues relating thereto to the jury, and, upon their answers thereto, overruling said plea. The only contract in writing was constituted by confirmations of the sale and purchase. The confirmation of the sale stated that Turner had sold to *88 Hughes & Co. 50 bales of cotton f. o. b. Sin-ton, basis middling, at 12.70 cents per pound. The confirmation of purchase added nothing to the contract, but merely showed assent to the terms stated in the confirmation of sale. The obligation alleged to have been breached by Hughes was that of paying for the cotton. This obligation was not performable at Sin-ton under the terms of the written contract. We think this case is governed by the following decisions: Bomar Cotton Oil Co. v. Schubert, 145 S. W. 1193; Ogburn-Dalchau Lumber Co. v. Taylor, 59 Tex. Civ. App. 442, 126 S. W. 48; Casey v. Carr, 148 S. W. 601; McCammant v. Webb, 147 S. W. 693.

As between the plaintiff, Turner," and defendants Maples and Arnold, who have not appealed, the' judgment of the trial court will not be disturbed, but as between plaintiff and appellant Hughes it is reversed, with instructions to sustain the plea of privilege and dismiss that part of the case. Ft. Worth Horse & Mule Co. v. Smith, 149 S. W. 200; Galveston D. G. Co. v. Mitchell, 171 S. W. 278.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 S.W. 87, 1916 Tex. App. LEXIS 984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-v-turner-texapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack