Advance Ross Electronics Corp. v. Green, No. 1467
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | MOORE |
| Citation | 624 S.W.2d 316 |
| Parties | ADVANCE ROSS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION and Advance Ross Corporation, Appellants, v. Roy Wesley GREEN, Jr., trustee, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 1467 |
| Decision Date | 29 October 1981 |
Page 316
Corporation, Appellants,
v.
Roy Wesley GREEN, Jr., trustee, Appellee.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 17, 1981.
John Mack Smith, Longview, for appellant.
Joe Green, Longview, for appellee.
Page 317
MOORE, Justice.
This is an action for breach of a written lease agreement. Plaintiff, Roy Wesley Green (Green), sued defendants, Advance Ross Electronics Corporation (Electronics) and Advance Ross Corporation (Ross), for money damages brought about by the reduction by defendants of the amount of the monthly rental payments due under a lease. The lease was signed the same day plaintiff entered into an employment contract with defendants. The pertinent part of the lease stated:
Lessee (defendants herein) agrees to pay Lessor (plaintiff herein) as rental for the use of said premises a total monthly rental of one and five tenths per cent (1.5%) of the total aggregate cost of the real estate, improvements, and equipment, payable in monthly installments in advance .... In the event Lessor's employment with Lessee is terminated by Lessor for any reason or terminated by Lessee for cause, then the rental rates for such month or part thereof, after that date shall be reduced to an amount equal to 1.1% of the total aggregate costs in lieu of the 1.5% heretofore mentioned.
In 1980 defendants terminated plaintiff's employment and accordingly reduced the rental payments. Plaintiff thereupon brought suit for breach of the lease agreement contending that defendants lacked cause to terminate his employment and therefore had no right to reduce the monthly rentals.
Trial was before a jury. The cause was submitted to a jury upon a special issue inquiring as to whether defendants had cause for terminating plaintiff's employment. In response the jury answered: "We do not." Judgment was rendered for plaintiff for delinquent rent in the amount of $81,000, from which defendants appealed.
We affirm.
Defendants bring eight points of error. Under the first point of error defendants contend that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling their plea in abatement. In this connection the record shows that defendants filed a plea in abatement alleging prior to the time plaintiff filed the present suit, he had instituted suit against defendants in Chicago, Illinois, for breach of the same employment contract involved in the present case and that the present suit should be abated on the grounds of comity until the suit in Illinois was finally determined.
While the record shows that the trial court conducted a hearing on the plea in abatement, the record does not contain any order or ruling thereon. Since however defendants concede that the plea was overruled, we shall proceed accordingly. The record before us however does not contain a statement of facts showing what evidence, if any, was adduced at the hearing on the plea in abatement. Since the propriety of a court's order overruling a plea in abatement depends upon the evidence adduced at the hearing on the plea, we are unable to determine whether or not the court erred in overruling the plea in the absence of a statement of facts. Vestal v. Jackson, 598 S.W.2d 724 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1980, no writ); Rancho Camille, S. A. v. Beachum, 596 S.W.2d 632 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1980, no writ); Geyer v. Jones, 93 S.W.2d 1192 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1936, writ dism'd). Accordingly, defendants' first point of error is overruled.
By points two through six defendants seek a reversal asserting that the trial court erred in overruling their motion for instructed verdict and for judgment non obstante veredicto, because there was no evidence to support the submission of the issue to the jury or to support the jury's finding thereon.
The cause was submitted to the jury upon a single special issue reading as follows: "Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Roy Wesley Green, Jr., was terminated from his employment with defendants for cause as that term is defined below?" In response to the issue,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norris v. Housing Authority of City of Galveston, Civil Action No. G-96-459.
...ref'd n.r.e.). Moreover, the burden is on the employer to prove the existence of good cause. See Advance Ross Electronics Corp. v. Green, 624 S.W.2d 316, 318 (Tex.App. — Tyler 1981, no writ); Langford v. Home for Aged Masons, 617 S.W.2d 778, 780 (Tex.Civ.App. — Fort Worth 1981, no Good caus......
-
U.S. v. Fagan, No. 86-2284
..."to do no act which ha[d] a tendency to injure the employer's business or financial interest." Advance Ross Electronics Corp. v. Green, 624 S.W.2d 316, 318 (Tex.App.1981--Tyler, writ ref'd n.r.e.), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1108, 102 S.Ct. 3488, 73 L.Ed.2d 1370 (1982); see Turner v. Byers, 562......
-
Baldwin v. Sisters of Providence in Washington, Inc., No. 54771-8
...75 Or.App. 638, 707 P.2d 1256 (1985), rev'd on other grounds, 301 Or. 117, 719 P.2d 854 (1986); Advance Ross Electronics Corp. v. Green, 624 S.W.2d 316 (Tex.Ct.App.1981), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1108, 102 S.Ct. 3488, 73 L.Ed.2d 1370 (1982); Howell v. Kelly, 534 S.W.2d 737 We do not believe e......
-
Truong v. City of Houston, No. 01-01-00022-CV.
...Without a statement of facts, we must presume the evidence supports the court's ruling. Id.; see Advance Ross Elec. Corp. v. Green, 624 S.W.2d 316, 317 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (holding that error could not be determined where there was no record of evidence presented at the......
-
Norris v. Housing Authority of City of Galveston, Civil Action No. G-96-459.
...ref'd n.r.e.). Moreover, the burden is on the employer to prove the existence of good cause. See Advance Ross Electronics Corp. v. Green, 624 S.W.2d 316, 318 (Tex.App. — Tyler 1981, no writ); Langford v. Home for Aged Masons, 617 S.W.2d 778, 780 (Tex.Civ.App. — Fort Worth 1981, no Good caus......
-
U.S. v. Fagan, No. 86-2284
..."to do no act which ha[d] a tendency to injure the employer's business or financial interest." Advance Ross Electronics Corp. v. Green, 624 S.W.2d 316, 318 (Tex.App.1981--Tyler, writ ref'd n.r.e.), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1108, 102 S.Ct. 3488, 73 L.Ed.2d 1370 (1982); see Turner v. Byers, 562......
-
Baldwin v. Sisters of Providence in Washington, Inc., No. 54771-8
...75 Or.App. 638, 707 P.2d 1256 (1985), rev'd on other grounds, 301 Or. 117, 719 P.2d 854 (1986); Advance Ross Electronics Corp. v. Green, 624 S.W.2d 316 (Tex.Ct.App.1981), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1108, 102 S.Ct. 3488, 73 L.Ed.2d 1370 (1982); Howell v. Kelly, 534 S.W.2d 737 We do not believe e......
-
Truong v. City of Houston, No. 01-01-00022-CV.
...Without a statement of facts, we must presume the evidence supports the court's ruling. Id.; see Advance Ross Elec. Corp. v. Green, 624 S.W.2d 316, 317 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (holding that error could not be determined where there was no record of evidence presented at the......