Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Dickson, 4886.
| Decision Date | 18 April 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 4886.,4886. |
| Citation | 115 S.W.2d 1223 |
| Parties | COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO. v. DICKSON. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from County Court at Law, Tarrant County; Thomas J. Renfro, Judge.
Suit by H. L. Dickson against the Coca-Cola Bottling Company to recover unpaid balance of commissions allegedly due plaintiff under a written contract. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Canty, Hanger & McMahon, J. A. Gooch, and Byron Scarborough, all of Fort Worth, for appellant.
Marvin B. Simpson and Harris Brewster, both of Fort Worth, for appellee.
The appellee, H. L. Dickson, instituted this suit in the county court at law of Tarrant county against the corporate appellant, Coca-Cola Bottling Company, on a written contract to recover the sum of $433.29, with interest, alleged to be an unpaid balance of commissions due appellee by appellant.
The appellee alleges that he was employed by the appellant the entire year 1935 as a truck salesman to drive one of appellant's trucks, sell and deliver to customers Coca-Cola and soda water for which he was to receive the agreed commission of .0656 for each case so sold and delivered. A written contract, dated February 19, 1934, under the terms of which appellee was paid a commission on his sales for said year, was copied in the petition, and appellee asserts it was renewed and constituted the contract for appellee's services for the year 1935, during which he sold and delivered for the appellant 26,414 cases of Coca-Cola and soda water on which his commissions aggregated the sum of $1,733.29; that he had received the sum of $1,300 thereon, leaving a balance of $433.29 due and unpaid.
The appellant answered by general demurrer and general denial and by trial amendment pleaded failure of consideration.
In response to special issues, the jury found, in effect, that the appellant agreed to pay appellee a commission of .0656 per case for each case of Coca-Cola and soda water sold by him during the year 1934; that the appellant and appellee agreed to renew the commission contract of 1934 for the year 1935, and appellee was to receive .0656 on each case of Coca-Cola and soda water sold by him during said last year; that appellee was not advised that his commissions were to be limited to the increase of the cases sold in 1935 over the number sold in 1934. The failure of consideration was not submitted nor requested.
On these findings, the court entered judgment for appellee for the sum of $345.76, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from January 1, 1936, until paid, from which judgment, this appeal is prosecuted.
The appellant urges as error the action of the court in refusing to direct a verdict in its behalf, contending that the testimony is wholly insufficient to support the findings of the jury or warrant the judgment of the court. The contract alleged by appellee to have been renewed is in the form of a letter and reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crews v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.
...tractor. The appellate court held to the contrary and reversed the judgment. It quoted in its opinion from Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Dickson, Tex.Civ. App., 115 S.W.2d 1223, 1224, as follows: "It has been frequently held to be reversible error for the court to direct a verdict, `"If, discar......
-
Higgins v. Standard Lloyds
...131; Owen v. Al Parker Securities Co. et al., Tex.Civ.App., 296 S.W. 620, affirmed Tex.Com.App., 1 S.W.2d 271; Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Dickson, Tex.Civ.App., 115 S.W.2d 1223; Dendy v. Cockerham et ux., Tex.Civ.App., 82 S.W.2d 756; Texas Emp. Ins. Ass'n v. Ritchie, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d ......
-
Lipscomb v. Houston Electric Co.
...plaintiff which might have been drawn from the facts proven, a jury might have found in favor of the plaintiff. Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Dickson, Tex.Civ. App., 115 S.W.2d 1223; Dendy v. Cockerham et al., Tex.Civ.App., 82 S.W.2d The law is, however, equally well established in this state t......
-
Wheat v. Texas Co., 11073.
...in cases involving a peremptory instruction are stated in Lawson v. Hutcherson, Tex.Civ. App., 138 S.W.2d 131; Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Dickson, Tex.Civ.App., 115 S.W. 2d 1223, and Kleising v. Miller, Tex.Civ. App., 83 S.W.2d 732. The rule stated in Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. Davis, 1......