Marion v. Hammonds

Court of Appeals of Texas

Marion v. Hammonds

374 S.W.2d 349, 1963 Tex. App. LEXIS 1948

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 16, 1963

DocketNo. 7315

StatusPublished

This text of 374 S.W.2d 349 (Marion v. Hammonds) 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

Marion v. Hammonds, 374 S.W.2d 349, 1963 Tex. App. LEXIS 1948 (Tex. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

CHAPMAN, Justice.

This is an appeal by J. B. Marion d/b/a J. B. Marion & Company from an adverse judgment based upon a jury verdict in favor of W. B. Hammonds in which he sued for breach of contract to purchase all the cotton appellee grew on two designated farms in 1961 at thirty cents per pound.

Appellant accepted the first seventy-five bales and refused one hundred and seven bales, telling appellee he did not have the money to pay for them. He also told him to sell the cotton and sue them for the difference. This is exactly what he did after taking the cotton cards to “half a dozen or more offices over on Cotton Row,” selling to a cotton buyer by the name of Vandiver for the highest price offered.

The court submitted an issue as to whether appellee exercised ordinary care to sell the one hundred and seven bales of cotton for a fair market value, to which the jury answered in the affirmative. The only point raised is that “ * * * the burden [350]*350was upon plaintiff to secure a jury finding as to the fair market value of such cotton at the time of breach and the place of delivery.” The exact same point was raised in J. B. Marion d/b/a J. B. Marion & Company v. Bowers, Tex.Civ.App., 371 S.W.2d 575.

We have previously disposed of that point in the case just cited and here refer to that opinion for a proper disposition of this case.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.

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

CHAPMAN, Justice.

This is an appeal by J. B. Marion d/b/a J. B. Marion & Company from an adverse judgment based upon a jury verdict in favor of W. B. Hammonds in which he sued for breach of contract to purchase all the cotton appellee grew on two designated farms in 1961 at thirty cents per pound.

Appellant accepted the first seventy-five bales and refused one hundred and seven bales, telling appellee he did not have the money to pay for them. He also told him to sell the cotton and sue them for the difference. This is exactly what he did after taking the cotton cards to “half a dozen or more offices over on Cotton Row,” selling to a cotton buyer by the name of Vandiver for the highest price offered.

The court submitted an issue as to whether appellee exercised ordinary care to sell the one hundred and seven bales of cotton for a fair market value, to which the jury answered in the affirmative. The only point raised is that “ * * * the burden [350]*350was upon plaintiff to secure a jury finding as to the fair market value of such cotton at the time of breach and the place of delivery.” The exact same point was raised in J. B. Marion d/b/a J. B. Marion & Company v. Bowers, Tex.Civ.App., 371 S.W.2d 575.

We have previously disposed of that point in the case just cited and here refer to that opinion for a proper disposition of this case.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

374 S.W.2d 349, 1963 Tex. App. LEXIS 1948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marion-v-hammonds-texapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack