West v. L. W. Sweet, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas

West v. L. W. Sweet, Inc.

292 S.W. 251, 1927 Tex. App. LEXIS 1046

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 3, 1927

DocketNo. 1495.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 292 S.W. 251 (West v. L. W. Sweet, Inc.) 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

West v. L. W. Sweet, Inc., 292 S.W. 251, 1927 Tex. App. LEXIS 1046 (Tex. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

WALKER, J.

This suit was by appellee against appellant to recover the balance due on the purchase price of a diamond ring sold by appellee t.o appellant. The trial was to a jury on the evidence- of appellant alone, who admitted that he purchased the ring from ap-pellee O. O. D.; that he paid a O. O. D. charge of $30 and about one month later a further payment of $12; that a short while after making the last payment he received an invoice on the ring, showing the purchase price to be $157.70; that he made no complaint of the price, and did not offer to return the ring, but, after a long default in its payments, wrote appellee apologizing for his default, and offering to pay all past-due installments at an early date. After he had been in default so long that appellee threatened to file suit, he admitted receiving a letter from appellee offering to take the ring back, cancel the debt, and give appellee a refund, which letter he ignored.

On a trial to a jury, a general verdict, “We, the jury, find for the plaintiff,” was returned and received by the court, upon which judgment was entered in plaintiff’s favor for the amount sued for, with legal interest.

The judgment was responsive to the verdict, and, upon the verdict, the court correctly entered judgment in favor of appellee for the balance due on its account, with interest at 6 per cent. Darden v. Matthews, 22 Tex. 320.

The court did not err in refusing evidence as to the market value of the ring, nor in his 'remarks to the witness,' tendered by appellant on that issue. By retaining the ring and agreeing to pay for the same after the receipt of the invoice, appellant obligated himself to pay the price named in the invoice, and a market value less than that named in the invoice was no defense. In 39 Cye. 59, it •is said:

“If a person sending or delivering the goods names a price, and the-other deals with the goods as his own, a sale for the price named is implied.”

The judgment is affirmed.

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

WALKER, J.

This suit was by appellee against appellant to recover the balance due on the purchase price of a diamond ring sold by appellee t.o appellant. The trial was to a jury on the evidence- of appellant alone, who admitted that he purchased the ring from ap-pellee O. O. D.; that he paid a O. O. D. charge of $30 and about one month later a further payment of $12; that a short while after making the last payment he received an invoice on the ring, showing the purchase price to be $157.70; that he made no complaint of the price, and did not offer to return the ring, but, after a long default in its payments, wrote appellee apologizing for his default, and offering to pay all past-due installments at an early date. After he had been in default so long that appellee threatened to file suit, he admitted receiving a letter from appellee offering to take the ring back, cancel the debt, and give appellee a refund, which letter he ignored.

On a trial to a jury, a general verdict, “We, the jury, find for the plaintiff,” was returned and received by the court, upon which judgment was entered in plaintiff’s favor for the amount sued for, with legal interest.

The judgment was responsive to the verdict, and, upon the verdict, the court correctly entered judgment in favor of appellee for the balance due on its account, with interest at 6 per cent. Darden v. Matthews, 22 Tex. 320.

The court did not err in refusing evidence as to the market value of the ring, nor in his 'remarks to the witness,' tendered by appellant on that issue. By retaining the ring and agreeing to pay for the same after the receipt of the invoice, appellant obligated himself to pay the price named in the invoice, and a market value less than that named in the invoice was no defense. In 39 Cye. 59, it •is said:

“If a person sending or delivering the goods names a price, and the-other deals with the goods as his own, a sale for the price named is implied.”

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 S.W. 251, 1927 Tex. App. LEXIS 1046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/west-v-l-w-sweet-inc-texapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack