Curtis v. National Cash Register Co.
| Decision Date | 20 May 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 7849,7849 |
| Citation | 429 S.W.2d 909 |
| Parties | William R. CURTIS, Appellant, v. The NATIONAL CASH REGISTER CO., Appellee. . Amarillo |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Simpson, Adkins, Fullingim & Hankins and Michael C. Musick, Amarillo, for appellant.
Gibson, Ochsner, Harlan, Kinney & Morris, and Jon T. Oden, Amarillo, for appellee.
The National Cash Register Co., hereinafter referred to as appellee, brought this suit against William R. Curtis, hereinafter referred to as appellant, to recover the sum of $2,468.40 due under a contract for rental of personal property. It is appellee's contention that the lease was for a period of 12 months and that appellant retained the machine for the 12 months but failed to pay for the last four months. It was appellant's contention that the lease was for a month-to-month lease and that he had the right to cancel the lease at any time and that he orally notified appellee to pick up the machine covered by the lease . Appellant agrees that if the lease was for 12 months as contended by appellee that he owed the $2,468.40 to appellee as found by the trial court, but that if the lease was for month-to-months as contended by appellant then all rents that accrued under the contract had been paid and he owed nothing.
The case was tried to the court without a jury. at the request of appellant, the trial judge filed the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
'FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On December 30, 1965, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a conditional sales contract referred to in this trial as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1.
2. Pursuant to the contract dated December 30, 1965, Plaintiff delivered to Defendant one NCR 395 accounting machine on December 30, 1965.
3. On May 11, 1966, Plaintiff and Defendant executed an equipment rental contract referred to in this trial as Plaintiff's Exhibit 2.
4. On May 11, 1966, Plaintiff and Defendant agreed to substitute the equipment rental contract (Plaintiff's Exhibit 2) for the conditional sales contract (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1.)
5. Plaintiff and Defendant did not verbally agree to make the equipment rental contract a month-to-month contract.
6. Plaintiff and Defendant agreed the equipment rental contract would have a primary term of twelve months.
7. Plaintiff and Defendant agreed that the $2,399.20 down payment would be applied as a cerdit to Defendant on the equipment rental contract in payment of the rental payments for the months and in the amounts indicated as follows:
February 1, to March 1, 1966 $617.10
March 1, to April 1, 1966 617.10
April 1, to May 1, 1966 617.10
May 1, to June 1, 1966 547.90
---------
TOTAL ......................... $2,399.20
8. Plaintiff made payments under the equipment rental contract which Defendant credited to his account as follows:
January 3, 1966 $2,399.20
April 1, 1966 730.00
September 23, 1966 573.40
October 31, 1966 1,234.20
---------
TOTAL ............... $4,936.80
9. Defendant made no other payments on said equipment rental contract than those listed in the above findings of fact.
10. Defendant made no payments under the equipment rental contract for the months of October, November and December of 1966 and January, 1967.
11. The total rental for twelve months under the equipment rental contract was $7,405.20.
12. Defendant paid, under the equipment rental contract, a total of $4,936.80.
13. The difference between twelve months' rental and the amount Defendant paid is $2,468.40.
14. Plaintiff and Defendant did not agree in writing to cancel, revoke or modify the equipment rental contract.
15. Plaintiff and Defendant did not agree to terminate the equipment rental contract prior to January 13, 1967 except upon Defendant's renting from Plaintiff an electronic data processing machine.
16. Defendant did not rent from Plaintiff an electronic data processing machine.
17. The NCR 395 machine, rented under the terms of the equipment rental contract, was in the possession of Defendant from December 30, 1965, until January 13, 1967.
18. The NCR 395 machine was being operated and used by Defendant as late as December of 1966.
1. The equipment rental contract, Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, is not ambiguous.
2. The term of the equipment rental contract, Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, was twelve (12) months.
3. Defendant did not effectively cancel, revoke, modify or terminate the equipment rental contract, Plaintiff's Exhibit 2.
4. The equipment rental contract, Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, was binding on Plaintiff and Defendant until January 13, 1967.
5. Defendant is liable under the equipment rental contract, Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, to Plaintiff in the liquidated amount of $2,468.40.
6. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against Defendant in the amount of $2,468.40, together with interest from date of judgment until paid at the rate of six per cent (6%) per annum,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Corpus Christi v. Davis
...n. r. e.); Galvan v. Galvan, 534 S.W.2d 398, 400-401 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1976, writ dism'd); Curtis v. National Cash Register Co., 429 S.W.2d 909 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1968, writ ref'd n. r. e.); McKenzie v. Carte, 385 S.W.2d 520 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1964, writ ref'd n. r. e.). Se......
-
Smith v. Hues
...1970, no writ); Hardeman v. Mitchell, 444 S.W.2d 651 (Tex.Civ.App., Tyler 1969, no writ); Curtis v. National Cash Register Co., 429 S.W.2d 909 (Tex.Civ.App., Amarillo 1968, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Kroger Co. v. Warren, 420 S.W.2d 218 (Tex.Civ.App., Houston (1st Dist.) 1967, no writ); McKenzie v......
-
Gubitosi v. Buddy Schoellkopf Products, Inc.
...School Dist., 525 S.W.2d 32 (Tex.Civ.App .--Tyler 1975, affirmed, Sup., 539 S.W.2d 861); Curtis v. National Cash Register Co.,429 S.W.2d 909 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1968, ref'd n.r.e.). Appellees' agreement to forebear from filing suit against appellant and Parker Corporation and appellees'......
-
Rosetta v. Rosetta
...they are binding upon the parties and must be accepted by the Court of Civil Appeals citing Curtis v. National Cash Register Co., 429 S.W.2d 909 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo, 1968, writ ref'd, n.r.e.) and cases there cited. We do not disagree with this rule; however, the two findings upon which ......