Zenith Corp. v. Cook Operating Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Zenith Corp. v. Cook Operating Co.

142 S.W.2d 548, 1940 Tex. App. LEXIS 586

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 27, 1940

DocketNo. 5636

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 142 S.W.2d 548 (Zenith Corp. v. Cook Operating 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

Zenith Corp. v. Cook Operating Co., 142 S.W.2d 548, 1940 Tex. App. LEXIS 586 (Tex. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

HALL, Justice.

In the court below plaintiff in error was defendant, and defendant in error was plaintiff, and they will be so designated here. Plaintiff instituted this suit against defendant for $863.75 for labor performed by it and by Volunteer Development Company, whose assignment it held, as shown by sworn account attached to its petition. It was alleged that plaintiff and Volunteer Development Company had each fixed a mechanic’s and laborer’s lien on certain of defendant’s oil properties which it sought to foreclose. Defendant answered by general demurrer and plea of accord and satisfaction to the effect that it had transferred and assigned to plaintiff certain oil interests in full satisfaction of the indebtedness" owing by it to plaintiff. Defendant denied certain specific items in plaintiff's sworn account, and by way of cross-action alleged that plaintiff was indebted to it in the sum of $153.90 for which it sought judgment. Trial was to the court without a jury, which resulted in judgment for plaintiff.

Defendant’s only proposition asserts that the judgment of the court below is not sustained by the evidence for the reason that it established accord and satisfaction by clear proof. No findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed by the trial court, and there is no request therefor, so, if the judgment of the court below can be affirmed on any theory, it is our duty to do so. Texas Creosoting Co. v. Hartburg Lhr. Co., Tex.Com.App., 12 S.W.2d 169; Adcock v. Shell, 273 S.W. 900, writ re[549]*549fused; Boyd v. Keystone Driller Co., Tex.Civ.App., 6 S.W.2d 221, writ refused; Johnson v. Campbell, Tex.Civ.App., 107 S. W.2d 1111; Bolyard v. Toronto Pipe Line Co., Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 960, writ dismissed.

We have carefully examined the testimony in the record and conclude that it amply supports the judgment of the trial court.

The judgment is therefore in all things affirmed.

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

HALL, Justice.

In the court below plaintiff in error was defendant, and defendant in error was plaintiff, and they will be so designated here. Plaintiff instituted this suit against defendant for $863.75 for labor performed by it and by Volunteer Development Company, whose assignment it held, as shown by sworn account attached to its petition. It was alleged that plaintiff and Volunteer Development Company had each fixed a mechanic’s and laborer’s lien on certain of defendant’s oil properties which it sought to foreclose. Defendant answered by general demurrer and plea of accord and satisfaction to the effect that it had transferred and assigned to plaintiff certain oil interests in full satisfaction of the indebtedness" owing by it to plaintiff. Defendant denied certain specific items in plaintiff's sworn account, and by way of cross-action alleged that plaintiff was indebted to it in the sum of $153.90 for which it sought judgment. Trial was to the court without a jury, which resulted in judgment for plaintiff.

Defendant’s only proposition asserts that the judgment of the court below is not sustained by the evidence for the reason that it established accord and satisfaction by clear proof. No findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed by the trial court, and there is no request therefor, so, if the judgment of the court below can be affirmed on any theory, it is our duty to do so. Texas Creosoting Co. v. Hartburg Lhr. Co., Tex.Com.App., 12 S.W.2d 169; Adcock v. Shell, 273 S.W. 900, writ re[549]*549fused; Boyd v. Keystone Driller Co., Tex.Civ.App., 6 S.W.2d 221, writ refused; Johnson v. Campbell, Tex.Civ.App., 107 S. W.2d 1111; Bolyard v. Toronto Pipe Line Co., Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 960, writ dismissed.

We have carefully examined the testimony in the record and conclude that it amply supports the judgment of the trial court.

The judgment is therefore in all things affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 S.W.2d 548, 1940 Tex. App. LEXIS 586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zenith-corp-v-cook-operating-co-texapp-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack