Sigmund Eisner Co. v. Sol Frank Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Sigmund Eisner Co. v. Sol Frank Co.

70 S.W.2d 465, 1934 Tex. App. LEXIS 366

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 21, 1934

DocketNo. 9293.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 70 S.W.2d 465 (Sigmund Eisner Co. v. Sol Frank Co.) 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

Sigmund Eisner Co. v. Sol Frank Co., 70 S.W.2d 465, 1934 Tex. App. LEXIS 366 (Tex. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

PLY, Chief Justice.

This suit was instituted by plaintiff in error, Sigmund Eisner Company, against defendant in error, to recover the sum of $409.-50, as evidenced by an itemized sworn account for merchandise delivered to defendant in error. The merchandise consisted of ninety-one coats and ninety-one breeches delivered to defendant in error. The verified account was denied under oath by defendant in error, hereinafter called defendant, and a cross-action was instituted by defendant against plaintiff in error, called herein plaintiff, to recover the sum'of $977.13, alleged to •be due as damages for the failure to properly manufacture certain khaki cloth sent to plaintiff by defendant, whereby the cloth was rendered useless and defendant lost a certain contract made by it with the United States government of which plaintiff had notice, whereby defendant was damaged in the sum of $977.13. '

The cause was tried without a jury, and judgment rendered against plaintiff on its claim, and judgment rendered in favor of defendant as against plaintiff on the cross-action in the sum of $450.

The seven assignments of error presented by plaintiff are based on the existence of certain testimony alleged to have been given before the trial court, and, there being no statement of facts, it is apparent that this court has no basis for passing on such assignments.

They are overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

PLY, Chief Justice.

This suit was instituted by plaintiff in error, Sigmund Eisner Company, against defendant in error, to recover the sum of $409.-50, as evidenced by an itemized sworn account for merchandise delivered to defendant in error. The merchandise consisted of ninety-one coats and ninety-one breeches delivered to defendant in error. The verified account was denied under oath by defendant in error, hereinafter called defendant, and a cross-action was instituted by defendant against plaintiff in error, called herein plaintiff, to recover the sum'of $977.13, alleged to •be due as damages for the failure to properly manufacture certain khaki cloth sent to plaintiff by defendant, whereby the cloth was rendered useless and defendant lost a certain contract made by it with the United States government of which plaintiff had notice, whereby defendant was damaged in the sum of $977.13. '

The cause was tried without a jury, and judgment rendered against plaintiff on its claim, and judgment rendered in favor of defendant as against plaintiff on the cross-action in the sum of $450.

The seven assignments of error presented by plaintiff are based on the existence of certain testimony alleged to have been given before the trial court, and, there being no statement of facts, it is apparent that this court has no basis for passing on such assignments.

They are overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 S.W.2d 465, 1934 Tex. App. LEXIS 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sigmund-eisner-co-v-sol-frank-co-texapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack