Gulf, W. T. & P. Ry. Co. v. Browne
Citation | 66 S.W. 341 |
Parties | GULF, W. T. & P. RY. CO. et al. v. BROWNE.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
Decision Date | 06 January 1902 |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from Goliad county court; M. W. Fowler, Special Judge.
Action by N. H. Browne against the Houston Cotton Oil Company, in which the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company and the Gulf, Western Texas & Pacific Railway Company were brought in as parties defendant on the petition of the original defendant. Judgment for plaintiff against the original defendant, and in favor of the latter over against the other defendants, and certain defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Proctors, for appellant railway company. G. E. Pope, for appellant oil company. Bell & Browne, for appellee.
N. H. Browne brought suit in the county court of Goliad county against the Houston Cotton Oil Company, a corporation under the laws of the state of Texas, with its domicile in Harris county, for the recovery of the agreed price of two car loads of cotton seed sold to it by the plaintiff, and delivered free on board the cars of the Gulf, Western Texas & Pacific Railway Company at Goliad for shipment to the oil company at Houston. The oil company had no agent in Goliad county. The contract of sale was made with the plaintiff by one Swift, an agent of the oil company, by telephone from Cuero. Browne required payment for the seed in cash, and Swift requested him to draw upon the oil company for the price of each car load, less one ton for the correction of weights at the defendant's mill, with bills of lading attached, which he did through a bank at Goliad. The drafts and bills of lading were sent by the bank to Galveston, and the seed were shipped on the morning of September 8, 1900. The great storm of that date having occurred, Browne directed the railway company to deliver the seed to the oil company without presentation of the bills of lading. The seed were tendered to the oil company by the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company, to which it had been delivered in course of transportation; but the oil company refused to accept them because they were rotten and unsound, and refused to pay for them. The defendant oil company first pleaded to the venue of the suit, and, further answering the plaintiff's cause of action, it denied that the contract was for the sale and delivery of the seed at Goliad, but alleged that, on the contrary, it was for the delivery of the seed on board cars in the city of Houston, Harris county, and alleged that the seed were to be sound, dry seed, for use in the manufacture of cotton seed oil, but that plaintiff, disregarding his agreement, shipped and offered to deliver to the defendant seed which upon their arrival in Houston were found to be rotten and entirely worthless, and the defendant refused to receive the same, and so notified the plaintiff. It pleaded further that the cars containing said seed were tendered to it by the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company, and that, immediately upon finding out the condition of the seed, it notified said railway of its refusal to accept the same, and ordered that they be sold for the best price obtainable, the proceeds to be held for whom it might concern; that the seed were sold by the defendant by the direction of the railway company, and the proceeds, $112.88, were delivered to the railway company; and the defendant prayed that the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company might be made a party to the suit, for the purpose of determining the ownership of the money held by it. The answer also contained the following allegations making the appellant Gulf, Western Texas & Pacific Railway Company a party to the suit: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Keller v. State
...to this rule, depending on the intent of the parties, to be gathered from the stipulations of their contract. Railroad v. Browne, 66 S. W. 341, 3 Tex. Ct. Rep. 717. For an able discussion of the meaning of the terms, "cash," "cash down," or "cash on delivery," as used in sale, see Austin v.......
-
Edinburg Irr. Co. v. Ledbetter
...Mason, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 559, 43 S. W. 797; Parlin & Orendorff Co. v. Miller, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 190, 60 S. W. 881; Gulf & Co. v. Browne, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 437, 66 S. W. 341; Kemendo v. Fruit Co., 61 Tex. Civ. App. 631, 131 S. W. 73; Railway Co. v. Griffin, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 91, 48 S. W. 542......
-
Barton v. Farmers' State Bank
...& T. Ry. Co. v. Maxwell (Tex. Civ. App.) 130 S. W. 722; Pullman Co. v. Hoyle, 52 Tex. Civ. App. 534, 115 S. W. 315; Ry. Co. v. Browne, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 437, 66 S. W. 341; Morris v. Davis (Tex. Civ. App.) 31 S. W. 850. The opinion in U. S. Fidelity Co. v. Fossati, 97 Tex. 504, 80 S. W. 74, ......
-
Closner & Sprague v. Acker
...Key v. Fouts, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 424, 99 S. W. 448; St. Louis, etc., v. Hengst, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 217, 81 S. W. 832; Gulf, etc., v. Browne, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 437, 66 S. W. 341; 2 Daniel on Neg. Ins. (6th Ed.) §§ The contentions raised by the first four assignments have been considered by us ......