Bratcher v. Dozier
| Decision Date | 31 May 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. A-8038,A-8038 |
| Citation | 162 Tex. 319,346 S.W.2d 795 |
| Parties | Stacey BRATCHER, Petitioner. v. C. K. DOZIER, d/b/a Dozier Tractor and Implement Company, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Walker F. Means, W. F. Leigh, Pecos, for petitioner.
Preston & Tomlin, Pecos, for respondent.
The petitioner, Stacey Bratcher, sued C. K. Dozier, doing business as Dozier Tractor and Implement Company, the respondent, for sums alleged to be due Bratcher by reason of Dozier's breach of an oral contract of employment providing for payment of 75% of the gross labor income of respondent's shop and a weekly guarantee of $100. Respondent Dozier, among other defenses, interposed the defense of the statute of frauds, and after a jury trial in the district court of Reeves County the trial court sustained respondent's motion for judgment based on such defense and overruled petitioner's amended motion for new trial. The Court of Civil Appeals at El Paso affirmed the judgment of the trial court. 337 S.W.2d 494.
Petitioner Stacey Bratcher contends here that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in holding that the oral contract of employment was rendered unenforceable by the statute of frauds.
It is undisputed that petitioner and respondent made an oral contract the first part of November, 1956, whereby petitioner, Bratcher, a mechanic, was to operate and supervise respondent's automotive tractor and equipment repair shop for a consideration of 75% of the gross labor income of the shop, with a minimum guarantee of $100 per week. No provision was contained in the oral contract as to the duration of the agreement. Petitioner went to work for respondent on the 19th of November, 1956, and worked until March 28, 1958, when his employment was terminated by respondent. Petitioner alleged that respondent agreed at the time of making the contract that respondent would furnish petitioner with a workable steam cleaner to use in the shop, would furnish him with a man to clean parts and keep the building clean; that respondent would work as a mechanic in the shop from time to time when needed, but that petitioner would receive 75% of the income from the labor performed by respondent, except when working on his own machinery. Petitioner alleged further by reason of respondent's failure to furnish such steam cleaner and the failure to furnish regularly a man to clean parts and clean the building and to pay 75% of the gross labor income from work done by respondent that he was damaged.
The jury found the damage issues in favor of petitioner. Over the objection of petitioner the trial court also submitted two issues on the duration of the agreement. Upon the answers to these two issues the trial court entered judgment for respondent and that petitioner take nothing. Petitioner brought his suit upon the oral contract and alleged no other grounds upon which he might recover. Petitioner contends that neither of the issues on the duration of the agreement should have been submitted because there was no evidence raising the issues. We agree with petitioner and hold that the trial court should have granted his motion for judgment.
(1, 2) Article 3995, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St., which is known as our Statute of Frauds, provides as follows:
'No action shall be brought in any court in any of the following cases, unless the promise or agreement upon which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum thereof, shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or by some person by him thereunto lawfully authorized:
We think that the question of whether this contract comes within the statute of frauds is a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pruitt v. Levi Strauss & Co.
...between Pruitt and Levi Strauss. Whether a contract comes within the statute of frauds is a question of law. See Bratcher v. Dozier, 162 Tex. 319, 346 S.W.2d 795, 796 (1961). The statute of frauds in Texas provides that an oral agreement that cannot be performed within one year from the dat......
-
Young v. Ward
...amount of time are easily determined by the court to fall or not fall under the strictures of section 26.01(b)(6). Bratcher v. Dozier, 162 Tex. 319, 346 S.W.2d 795, 796 (1961) (question of whether an agreement falls within the statute of frauds is one of law). The court simply compares the ......
-
Allamon v. Acuity Specialty Prods., Inc.
...Statute of Frauds.” Welch v. Doss Aviation, Inc., 978 S.W.2d 215, 220 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1998, no pet.) (citing Bratcher v. Dozier, 162 Tex. 319, 346 S.W.2d 795, 796 (Tex.1961)); see Abatement, Inc. v. Williams, 324 S.W.3d 858, 861 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (citing M......
-
Unique Staff Leasing LLC v. Onder
...Christi 2004, no pet.). Generally, whether a contract falls within the statute of frauds is a question of law. Bratcher v. Dozier, 162 Tex. 319, 346 S.W.2d 795, 796 (1961); Lathem v. Kruse, 290 S.W.3d 922, 926 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.); Beverick v. Koch Power, Inc., 186 S.W.3d 145, 1......
-
Wrongful Discharge
...terms of an enforceable agreement. See, e.g. , Floors Unlimited v. Fieldcrest Cannon , 55 F.3d 181 (5th Cir. 1995); Bratcher v. Dozier , 346 S.W.2d 795, 797 (Tex. 1961) (employment contract for an indefinite term is considered performable within one year); Gerstacker v. Blum Consulting Eng’......
-
Employment Relationship Defined
...one year from date of making agreement, as “good cause” for terminating contract could occur within one year); Bratcher v. Dozier , 346 S.W.2d 795, 796 (Tex. 1961) (employment contract for an indefinite term is considered performable within one year); Cerstacker v. Blum Consulting Engineers......
-
Table of cases
...844 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1992, no writ), §18:7.B.1 Brandon v. Sage Corp., 61 F. Supp. 632 (W.D. Tex. 2014), §24:6.N.5 Bratcher v. Dozier , 346 S.W.2d 795 (Tex. 1961), §§1:3.B.4, 3:3.A.2, 3:3.B Brazinski v. Amoco Petroleum Additives Co ., 6 F.3d 1176 (7th Cir. 1993), §28:7.E Breaux v. City of......
-
Wrongful Discharge
...terms of an enforceable agreement. See, e.g. , Floors Unlimited v. Fieldcrest Cannon , 55 F.3d 181 (5th Cir. 1995); Bratcher v. Dozier , 346 S.W.2d 795, 797 (Tex. 1961) (employment contract for an indefinite term is considered performable within one year); Gerstacker v. Blum Consulting Eng’......