Young v. Taylor Cotton Oil Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Young v. Taylor Cotton Oil Co.

137 S.W. 1199, 1911 Tex. App. LEXIS 280

DecidedMay 10, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 137 S.W. 1199 (Young v. Taylor Cotton Oil 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

Young v. Taylor Cotton Oil Co., 137 S.W. 1199, 1911 Tex. App. LEXIS 280 (Tex. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

KEY, C. J.

In this case appellant sought to recover from appellee $250 damages for the breach of a contract by which appellee was to sell to appellant a tank of cotton seed oil. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of ap-pellee, and: appellant has brought the case to this court.

The rules of the Texas Cotton Seed Crushers’ Association were made a part of the contract, and, if this case falls within and is controlled by rule 23, the judgment of the trial court is correct. Cn the other hand, if appellant’s contention is correct, that the case is controlled by rule 22, then the wrong judgment was rendered, and the case should be reversed. The' rules referred to are not free from ambiguity, but we have reached the conclusion that the trial court did not commit error in the construction placed upon them, and for that reason we affirm the judgment.

Affirmed.

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

KEY, C. J.

In this case appellant sought to recover from appellee $250 damages for the breach of a contract by which appellee was to sell to appellant a tank of cotton seed oil. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of ap-pellee, and: appellant has brought the case to this court.

The rules of the Texas Cotton Seed Crushers’ Association were made a part of the contract, and, if this case falls within and is controlled by rule 23, the judgment of the trial court is correct. Cn the other hand, if appellant’s contention is correct, that the case is controlled by rule 22, then the wrong judgment was rendered, and the case should be reversed. The' rules referred to are not free from ambiguity, but we have reached the conclusion that the trial court did not commit error in the construction placed upon them, and for that reason we affirm the judgment.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 S.W. 1199, 1911 Tex. App. LEXIS 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-taylor-cotton-oil-co-texapp-1911.