Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/Watson v. Cargill, Inc., Nutrena Division

Watson v. Cargill, Inc., Nutrena Division

573 S.W.2d 35, 1978 Tex. App. LEXIS 3746
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedSeptember 28, 1978
Docket5901
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 573 S.W.2d 35 (Watson v. Cargill, Inc., Nutrena Division) 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
Watson v. Cargill, Inc., Nutrena Division, 573 S.W.2d 35, 1978 Tex. App. LEXIS 3746 (Tex. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinions

HALL, Justice.

Plaintiff-Appellee Cargill, Inc., Nutrena Feed Division, brought this suit for quantum meruit to recover $4,554.72, alleged to be the reasonable value of dairy cattle feed sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendant-appellant Bobby Lee Watson on “a running account” in the regular course of business at defendant’s instance and request. Plaintiff sued also for reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,518.24. Defendant answered with a general denial, and with special pleas that (1) part of the account sued upon was barred by the two-year statute of limitation and (2) that he was not indebted to plaintiff on the last four sales sued upon because, by agreement of the parties, he had paid for each on delivery, but plaintiff had erroneously credited those payments to the oldest charges on his account. During the course of the trial, by way of trial amendment, defendant also pleaded that plaintiff had charged him usurious interest on the account subjecting plaintiff to the penalties set forth in Article 5069-1.06, for which he prayed recovery.

Trial was to the court without a jury. During the hearing the court determined that defendant’s plea of limitation was good, and refused to hear evidence proffered by plaintiff relating to the portion of the account which allegedly fell within the two-year limitation period. Plaintiff perfected its bill of exception on that proof. After the trial, the court sustained defendant’s plea of payment on delivery of the last four purchases from plaintiff, but denied defendant any recovery on his pleadings of usury. Under those rulings judgment was rendered for plaintiff for $1,192.41 on the account, plus $500.00 attorney’s fees.

Express findings of fact and conclusions of law were neither requested by the parties nor filed by the court. Therefore, it must be presumed that all necessary fact findings were impliedly made by the court in support of the judgment. Renfro Drug Co. v. Lewis, 149 Tex. 507, 235 S.W.2d 609, 613 (1950).

[37]*37Both parties complain on appeal. Defendant asserts (1) the court erred in allowing plaintiff any recovery on the account because there was no evidence of delivery or value of the feed sold to him; (2) the court erred in allowing plaintiff attorney’s fees because when this case was tried and determined there was no legal basis for such fees; and, (3) under the undisputed evidence, the court erred in failing to award defendant the penalties under the usury statutes, including an award of reasonable attorney’s fees. Plaintiff contends the court erred (1) in affirming defendant’s plea of limitation and failing to consider plaintiff’s proof as to all the open accounts; and (2) in holding that plaintiff could not credit cash payments made by defendant on the last four deliveries to the oldest unpaid invoices on the account.

Limitation

This case was originally filed by plaintiff on January 9, 1976, in the 19th Judicial District Court in McLennan County, as a suit on verified open account under the provisions of Rule 185, Vernon’s Tex.Rules Civ.Proc., for the sum $4,554.72.- The following itemized statement of account was attached to plaintiff’s original petition in support of the suit:

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

Related

Ashraf Mahmoud v. De Moss Owners Assn, Inc.
865 F.3d 322 (Fifth Circuit, 2017)
Lee Edward Morris v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010
Walker & Associates Surveying, Inc. v. Roberts
306 S.W.3d 839 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010)
Walker & Associates Surveying, Inc., and Dennis Walker, D/B/A Walker and Associates Construction v. Royce Roberts
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010
In Re Kilgore Meadowbrook Country Club, Inc.
315 B.R. 412 (E.D. Texas, 2004)
Volcanic Gardens Management Co., Inc. D/B/A Wet 'N' Wild Water World, (VGM) v. El Paso Electric Company (EPECO)
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004
M+W Zander, U.S. Operations, Inc. v. Scott Co.
78 P.3d 118 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2003)
Varel Manufacturing Co. v. Acetylene Oxygen Co.
990 S.W.2d 486 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Pentico v. Mad-Wayler, Inc.
964 S.W.2d 708 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Hardwick v. Austin Gallery of Oriental Rugs, Inc.
779 S.W.2d 438 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1989)
Seiter v. Veytia
756 S.W.2d 303 (Texas Supreme Court, 1988)
Industrial Disposal Supply Co. v. Perryman Bros. Trash Service, Inc.
664 S.W.2d 756 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1983)
Biggs v. Garrett
651 S.W.2d 342 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1983)
Esparza v. Nolan Wells Communications, Inc.
653 S.W.2d 532 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1983)
Bendele v. Tri-County Farmer's Co-Op
635 S.W.2d 459 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Concrete Construction Supply, Inc. v. M. F. C., Inc.
636 S.W.2d 475 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Preston Farm & Ranch Supply, Inc. v. Bio-Zyme Enterprises
625 S.W.2d 295 (Texas Supreme Court, 1981)
Flato Electric Supply Co. v. Grant
620 S.W.2d 915 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1981)
Begelfer v. Najarian
409 N.E.2d 167 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1980)
Dixon v. Brooks
604 S.W.2d 330 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
573 S.W.2d 35, 1978 Tex. App. LEXIS 3746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-cargill-inc-nutrena-division-texapp-1978.