J. S. McCall & Sons v. Roemer

186 S.W. 409, 1916 Tex. App. LEXIS 646
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 17, 1916
DocketNo. 5678.
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 186 S.W. 409 (J. S. McCall & Sons v. Roemer) 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
J. S. McCall & Sons v. Roemer, 186 S.W. 409, 1916 Tex. App. LEXIS 646 (Tex. Ct. App. 1916).

Opinion

MOURSUND, J.

J. S. McCall & Sons sued E. Roemer and L. Y. Bigham on an account for goods, wares, and merchandise alleged to have been sold to said Bigham at the instance and request of Roemer and upon the credit of the latter and in order to enable Bigham to make a crop on Roemer’s farm during the year 1914. Bigham, in open court, admitted the justness of the account. Roemer, in addition to a general denial, specially denied that he requested plaintiffs to sell Big-ham any goods or that he promised to pay the account, and, in addition, plead the statute of frauds. The jury, pursuant to the peremptory instruction of the court, returned a verdict in favor of defendant Roemer and against Bigham. Judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict, and plaintiffs appealed.

All of the assignments of error are directed at the ruling of the court in giving the peremptory instruction to return a verdict in favor of Roemer. It does not appear from the record that plaintiffs interposed any objections to the giving of such instruction. No exception was taken to the ruling until the motion for new trial was presented. This court has recently held that the statute requiring objections to be made to the charge, and exceptions to be saved to the ruling thereon, applies to a peremptory instruetion. Strong v. Harwell, 185 S. W. 676, not yet officially reported.

As appellants are not in a position entitling them to complain of the charge, the assignment must be overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Toole v. Moore
203 S.W. 429 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1918)
Byrne v. Texas Lumber & Loan Co.
198 S.W. 600 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1917)
Rockhill Country Club Co. v. Nix
198 S.W. 155 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1917)
Rockhill Country Club v. Nix
198 S.W. 155 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1917)
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Duff
195 S.W. 1169 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1917)
Huling v. Moore
194 S.W. 188 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1917)
Yate's Mercantile Co. v. Farmers' Guaranty State Bank of Jacksonville
194 S.W. 1157 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1917)
Pearce v. Supreme Lodge, Knights & Ladies of Honor
190 S.W. 1156 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1917)
Carr v. Pecos Valley State Bank
189 S.W. 988 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1916)
Thorne v. Dashiell
189 S.W. 986 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1916)
Land v. Johnson
189 S.W. 337 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
186 S.W. 409, 1916 Tex. App. LEXIS 646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-s-mccall-sons-v-roemer-texapp-1916.