Bastrop & Austin Bayou Rice Growers' Ass'n v. Cochran
Decision Date | 07 June 1911 |
Citation | 138 S.W. 1188 |
Parties | BASTROP & AUSTIN BAYOU RICE GROWERS' ASS'N et al. v. COCHRAN et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Harris County; Norman G. Kittrell, Judge.
Action by J. B. Cochran against the Bastrop & Austin Bayou Rice Growers' Association and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and certain defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Masterson & Rucks and Masterson & Masterson, for appellants.
This suit was brought by appellee, Cochran, against the appellant association and the individual members thereof, and against the appellee A. N. Fitzgerald, to recover the sum of $1,449.53, alleged to be due by the appellants to said Fitzgerald as a balance upon a contract under which Fitzgerald constructed for appellants a lock and dam across Bastrop bayou in Brazoria county, which claim for said balance Fitzgerald had transferred and assigned to appellee, Cochran, and guaranteed its payment.
The contract between appellants and Fitzgerald, upon which plaintiff's cause of action is based, was made and entered into on March 19, 1908. This contract, in which appellants are designated "the owners" and the contractor, Fitzgerald, "the builder," omitting the preamble and signatures of the parties thereto, is as follows:
The amended petition upon which the cause was tried alleges the execution of the contract and the full performance by Fitzgerald of all his obligations thereunder, and the transfer by Fitzgerald of his claim against appellants. The account stated in the petition and upon which recovery is sought is as follows:
Bastrop and Austin Bayou Rice Growers' Association Angleton, Texas, to A. N. Fitzgerald, Dr As per contract for rebuilding and repairing dam...................... $3,250 00 By cash, May 1st, 1908............. $1,083 33 By cash, May 25th, 1908............ 1,083 33 _________ $2,166 66 $3,250 00 To extra rods in dam between piling.. 66 20 To extra work in lowering floor in lock No. 2......................... 150 00 To extra work extra wing wall 20 ft. long on south side of cross dam ................................ 150 00 ____________________ $2,166 66 $3,616 20 Total balance ...................... $1,449 54...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Laredo Hides Co., Inc. v. H & H Meat Products Co., Inc.
...insisted upon. T. G. Shaw Oil Corporation v. Parker, 61 S.W.2d 587 (Tex.Civ.App.--Forth Worth 1933, n.w.h.); Bastrop & Austin Bayou Rice Growers' Ass'n v. Cochran, 138 S.W. 1188 (Tex.Civ.App.--Galveston 1911, It is settled law in this State that where the creditor expressly directs that the......
-
Pine Bluff Hotel Company v. Monk & Ritchie
...be waived. 6 Cyc. 65; 16 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 337; 20 Ohio 361; 2 Woodw. (Pa.) 332; 54 N.W. 743; 99 Ala. 620; 13 So. 118; 75 Atl, 25; 138 S.W. 1188-90. A amount of the extra work was done by order of the owners, and the contractors did the work and furnished the materials under the honest......
-
City of Houston v. L. J. Fuller, Inc.
...101 Tex. 63, 106 S.W. 876; City of Dallas v. Shortall, Tex.Com.App., 131 Tex. 368, 114 S.W.2d 536; Bastrop & Austin Bayou Rice Growers Ass'n v. Cochran, Tex.Civ.App., 138 S.W. 1188. It will be noted that in each of those cases the contract provided that the contractor for a lump or fixed su......
-
Pecos & N. T. Ry. Co. v. Amarillo St. Ry. Co.
...Court, but that court adopted the opinion and directed its publication. The same proposition is involved in the case of Bastrop, etc., v. Cochran, 138 S. W. 1188, where it is held the destruction of work by flood before its delivery by the builder to the owner does not excuse nonperformance......