Kelly v. Webb

27 Tex. 368
Texas Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1864·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Moore, J.

The contract between the parties to this suit, as shown by the record, presents clearly a case of mutual and dependent promises. Neither party was entitled to enforce from the other a fulfilment of the contract without at the same time performing its stipulations on his part. Kelly most certainly could not require Webb to deliver him the corn without tendering him the amount he had contracted to pay for it.

Nor, in cases such as this, can a plaintiff maintain his suit without proof of demand, or of such facts as in contemplation of law are tantamount thereto, but this Kelly failed to do, and was consequently not entitled to a verdict.

There is no error in the judgment, and it is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Kelly v. Webb, 27 Tex. 368 (Tex. 1864).

27 Tex. 368 (Kelly v. Webb) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Garcia v. Kastner Farms, Inc.
789 S.W.2d 656 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Dobbins v. Redden
785 S.W.2d 377 (Texas Supreme Court, 1990)
Lake LBJ Municipal Utility District v. Coulson
692 S.W.2d 897 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1985)
Sorsby v. Thom
168 S.W.2d 873 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1943)
Investors' Utility Corp. v. Challacombe
39 S.W.2d 175 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1931)
Reitzer v. Medlake Development Co.
27 S.W.2d 563 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1930)
Daniel-Miller Co. v. Roper
270 S.W. 1087 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Seaman v. McNamara
193 N.W. 377 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1923)
Todd v. State Bank
182 Iowa 276 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1917)
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Goodman
189 S.W. 326 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1916)
Adams v. Hughes
140 S.W. 1163 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1911)