W. W. Kimball Co. v. Newman

Court of Appeals of Texas

W. W. Kimball Co. v. Newman

76 S.W.2d 1118

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 28, 1934

DocketNo. 9463

StatusPublished

This text of 76 S.W.2d 1118 (W. W. Kimball Co. v. Newman) 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

W. W. Kimball Co. v. Newman, 76 S.W.2d 1118 (Tex. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

BICKETT, Chief Justice.

W. W. Kimball Company, a corporation, appellant, sued W. W. Newman, appellee, in the county court, for a balance of principal of $175, plus interest and attorney’s fees, alleg[1119]*1119ed to be due under a note or contract for tbe purchase of a piano, and for the foreclosure of á chattel mortgage lien upon a piano, alleged to be of the present value of $300.

Newman’s defense to the debt was that the piano delivered to him was a secondhand one, instead of a new one as contemplated, that he had paid more than the piano was worth, and that the note and mortgage should be canceled.

The jury found upon special issués that the piano was a secondhand one and that tlie amount due under the contract was nothing. And the court accordingly rendered judgment denying any recovery to the plaintiff. But these findings are contrary to the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence, and are clearly erroneous.

The judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded.

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

BICKETT, Chief Justice.

W. W. Kimball Company, a corporation, appellant, sued W. W. Newman, appellee, in the county court, for a balance of principal of $175, plus interest and attorney’s fees, alleg[1119]*1119ed to be due under a note or contract for tbe purchase of a piano, and for the foreclosure of á chattel mortgage lien upon a piano, alleged to be of the present value of $300.

Newman’s defense to the debt was that the piano delivered to him was a secondhand one, instead of a new one as contemplated, that he had paid more than the piano was worth, and that the note and mortgage should be canceled.

The jury found upon special issués that the piano was a secondhand one and that tlie amount due under the contract was nothing. And the court accordingly rendered judgment denying any recovery to the plaintiff. But these findings are contrary to the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence, and are clearly erroneous.

The judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 S.W.2d 1118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-w-kimball-co-v-newman-texapp-1934.