Armstrong v. W. T. Rawleigh Medical Co.
Decision Date | 05 June 1915 |
Docket Number | (No. 8209.) |
Parties | ARMSTRONG et al. v. W. T. RAWLEIGH MEDICAL CO. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Somervell County; W. J. Oxford, Judge.
Action by the W. T. Rawleigh Medical Company against W. F. Armstrong and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and rendered.
Dean & Zweifel, of Granbury, and W. E. Myres, of Cleburne, for appellants. Estes & Estes, of Granbury, for appellee.
The W. T. Rawleigh Medical Company filed suit in the district court of Hood county against W. F. Armstrong, as principal, and three named parties, as sureties or guarantors, for debt, in the sum of $600, arising under the contract hereinafter set out. The court having sustained defendants' plea of privilege to be sued in the county of their residence, the case was transferred to the district court of Somervell county. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, in a trial before the court without the aid of a jury, the defendants appealed.
Plaintiff alleged that it was a private corporation, incorporated under the laws of Illinois, having its principal office and place of business at Freeport, Ill. and that on or about July 21, 1911, the defendants entered into the contract, a copy of which was alleged to be on file with the papers in the case, and under said contract it agreed to sell and deliver to defendant Armstrong, f. o. b. Memphis, Tenn., on credit and at wholesale prices, certain extracts, toilet articles, perfumes, etc., and that by the terms of said contract with Armstrong as principal, and the three named parties as sureties or guarantors, they promised to pay therefor and remit to plaintiff at such times and in such amounts as specified.
Defendants in their answer alleged that the written contract pleaded by plaintiff was in violation of the anti-trust laws of the state, to wit, chapter 1, tit. 130, arts. 7796, 7798, Vernon's Sayles' Texas Civil Statutes, and that, therefore, said contract was null and void, and that plaintiff could not recover thereunder.
In its supplemental petition plaintiff alleged that said shipment of goods was and came under the terms of interstate commerce, because plaintiff was a nonresident of the state of Texas and the defendants residents of said state, and that, therefore, the said laws of Texas did not apply to nor prohibit said contract.
In their three assignments of error appellants urge: First, that the court erred in overruling the defendants' general demurrer to plaintiff's petition, because the same stated no cause of action, in that the contract shows on its face that it undertakes to prevent competition in business, and shows that one of the parties to said contract should have no other business, occupation, or employment other than that specified in the contract, and that he was not permitted thereunder to purchase articles of merchandise from any person other than the other contracting party; second, that the court erred in overruling the defendants' special exception to the plaintiff's petition, because the contract as set out in said petition is in violation of the anti-trust laws of the state of Texas; and, third, that the court erred in rendering judgment in this case for plaintiff, inasmuch as the uncontradicted evidence shows that the contract between the plaintiff and defendant Armstrong, when construed in its entirety and taken in connection with the letters of instruction admitted in evidence, and with the booklet of instructions admitted in evidence, and the agreement limiting the said Armstrong to certain territory is a violation of the anti-trust laws of the state of Texas, and should not be upheld.
But in discussing the case we will confine ourselves to a consideration of the original contract as pleaded by plaintiff, and to which reference is made in its petition. This contract reads as follows:
It will be noted that in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Amarillo Oil Co. v. Ranch Creek Oil & Gas Co.
...Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 146 S. W. 604; Wood v. Texas Ice & Cold Storage Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 171 S. W. 497; Armstrong v. W. T. Rawleigh Medical Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 178 S. W. 582; Carroll v. Evansville Brewing Association (Tex. Civ. App.) 179 S. W. 1099. A reasonable inference from the record ......
-
Hubb-Diggs Co. v. Mitchell
...S. W. 1187; J. R. Watkins Medical Co. v. Johnson et al., 162 S. W. 394; Rawleigh Medical Co. v. Mayberry, 193 S. W. 199; Armstrong v. Rawleigh Medical Co., 178 S. W. 582; Pictorial Review v. Pate Bros., 185 S. W. 309; Rawleigh Med. Co. v. Fitzpatrick, 184 S. W. 549; Rawleigh Med. Co. v. Gun......
-
Whisenant v. Shores-Mueller Co.
...of trade within the meaning of the Texas Anti-Trust Law (Acts 28th Leg. c. 94); Segal v. McCall Co. (Sup.) 184 S. W. 188; Armstrong v. Rawleigh Med. Co., 178 S. W. 582; Rawleigh Med. Co. v. Gunn, 186 S. W. 385; Rawleigh Med. Co. v. Fitzpatrick, 184 S. W. 549; Watkins Med. Co. v. Johnson, 16......
-
National Automatic Mach. Co. v. Smith
...Segal v. McCall Co., 108 Tex. 55, 184 S. W. 188; Rawleigh Med. Co. v. Gunn (Tex. Civ. App.) 186 S. W. 385; Armstrong v. W. T. Rawleigh Med. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 178 S. W. 582; Rawleigh Co. v. Harper (Tex. Civ. App.) 7 S. W.(2d) 892; Henderson Tire & Rubber Co. v. Roberts (Tex. Com. App.) 12......