Hahl v. Deutsch

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
Writing for the CourtGill
Citation94 S.W. 443
Decision Date12 February 1906
PartiesHAHL v. DEUTSCH.
94 S.W. 443
HAHL
v.
DEUTSCH.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.
February 12, 1906.
Rehearing Denied March 15, 1906.

Page 444

Appeal from District Court, Harris County; Chas. E. Ashe, Judge.

Action by Richard Deutsch against C. W. Hahl. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

L. B. Moody, for appellant. J. A. Gillette, for appellee.

GILL, C. J.


Richard Deutsch brought this suit to recover of C. W. Hahl $1,012, the alleged contract price for sinking a well for Hahl. He pleaded the contract of employment, the performance of the work, and prayed to recover the contract price. He also pleaded that the contract as first made was modified on account of the nature of a part of the strata through which he drilled and the size of the casing was thereby reduced from 10 to 8 inches. That he completed 250 feet of the well with 8-inch casing, but was prevented by defendant from completing the 60 feet next to the surface by failure of defendant to furnish the 8-inch casing and by defendant's insistence that the last 50 feet be finished with 10-inch casing. He also alleged that through this and other acts of defendant he was prevented from making an agreed test. He prayed that if the court could not allow him the contract price per foot for the well that he be allowed to recover upon a quantum meruit the value of the work he had done. The answer of defendant was a general denial. A trial to the court without a jury resulted in a judgment for plaintiff for $562.50, and the defendant has appealed.

By the first assignment appellant assails the finding of the trial court to the effect that the well in question was sunk under a verbal contract as alleged and not under a written contract of date February 16, 1903. The point made is that the finding is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The facts bearing upon the issue are in substance as follows: On February 16, 1903, Alfred Meurer, for the Southwestern Engineering Company, entered into the following written contract with C. W. Hahl: "State of Texas, Parish of Harris, Houston, Texas, 2—16, 1903. This agreement, entered into by and between the Southwestern Engineering Co., Ltd., of Jennings, La., party of the first part, and C. W. Hahl, of Houston, Texas, party of the second part, for the purpose of boring one (1) ten-in. (9 5/8) well, said well when completed shall furnish good quantity of water. Party of second part shall furnish all casing, and necessary feet. Screen delivered at well when test hole is completed. It is further agreed that party of the second part shall pay party of the first part $2.25 per foot for each and every well when completed; and to pay all cash. Party of the first part agrees to make thorough test of the well with P. K. Wood pump, and to furnish at least (500) five hundred gallons of water per minute. Also have well completed by April 1st, 1903. [Signed] Southwestern Engineering Co., per Alfred Meurer. C. W. Hahl." The company was a partnership composed of Meurer and the plaintiff Deutsch. This contract provided for the digging of but one well, and its terms do not disclose the place where it was to be sunk. The provision that each and every well when completed should be paid for in cash at $2.25 per foot is too general to apply to more than the one well, unless supplemented by further agreement, and is obviously not an undertaking on the part of the company to sink more than one well. In pursuance of this contract Deutsch shipped his machinery to Texas and according to his testimony completed a well on what is designated as the Hahl and Juda place within the time limit, and the well was accepted and paid for. Defendant denied this and adduced his and other testimony to show that the Hahl and Juda well was sunk under a special arrangement made because the engines had not been placed on the Cornthwaite place when Deutsch's machinery arrived; that the Cornthwaite place was where the well was to be sunk under the written contract. It is undisputed, however, that the Hahl and Juda well was sunk and completed for the price, within the time, and according to the terms of the written contract. The Cornthwaite well is the basis of this suit and was begun after April 6, 1903, and therefore after the time...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Evans v. Cheyenne Cement, Stone & Brick Company, 673
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 24, 1913
    ...the defendant permitted the sidewalk to remain and made use of it without objection. (Gwinnup v. Shies, 161 Ind. 500; Hahl v. Deutsch, 94 S.W. 443; Halleck v. Bresnahen, 3 Wyo. 73; Land Co. v. Brewer, 51 So. 559; Marchland v. Perrin, 124 N.W. 1112; Church v. Cement Co., 66 Md. 598.) The fin......
  • Smith v. Patterson, (No. 8991.)
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • May 5, 1927
    ...in support of his right to the recovery, in the circumstances thus outlined, these authorities: Hahl v. Deutsch, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 1, 94 S. W. 443; Hoppes v. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.) 213 S. W. 328; Holiday Oil Co. v. Smith, 100 Okl. 172, 228 P. 775; McPherson v. San Joaquin County, 6 Cal. ......
  • Buie v. Hofheinz, No. 12496
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
    • January 29, 1953
    ...Tex.Civ.App., 105 S.W. 543 (wr. Dis.); Eastham Bros. v. Blanchette, 42 Tex.Civ.App. 205, 94 S.W. 441; Hahl v. Deutsch, 42 Tex.Civ.App. 1, 94 S.W. 443; Lyon-Gray Lumber Co. v. Wichita Falls Brick & Tile Co., Tex.Civ.App., 194 S.W. 1167; Murphy v. Williams, 103 Tex. 155, 124 S.W. 900; Nees v.......
  • Melody Home Mfg. Co. v. Morrison, No. 16165
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
    • November 8, 1973
    ...did not undertake to correct the defective conditions. Sec. 2.714 Uniform, Business & Commerce Code; Hahl v. Deutsch, 42 Tex.Civ.App. 1, 94 S.W. 443 (1906, n.w.h.); Aultman & Taylor Co. v. Hefner, 67 Tex. 54, 2 S.W. 861 (1886). Appellant's point of error number 8 is Page 204 We further hold......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Evans v. Cheyenne Cement, Stone & Brick Company, 673
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 24, 1913
    ...the defendant permitted the sidewalk to remain and made use of it without objection. (Gwinnup v. Shies, 161 Ind. 500; Hahl v. Deutsch, 94 S.W. 443; Halleck v. Bresnahen, 3 Wyo. 73; Land Co. v. Brewer, 51 So. 559; Marchland v. Perrin, 124 N.W. 1112; Church v. Cement Co., 66 Md. 598.) The fin......
  • Smith v. Patterson, (No. 8991.)
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • May 5, 1927
    ...in support of his right to the recovery, in the circumstances thus outlined, these authorities: Hahl v. Deutsch, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 1, 94 S. W. 443; Hoppes v. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.) 213 S. W. 328; Holiday Oil Co. v. Smith, 100 Okl. 172, 228 P. 775; McPherson v. San Joaquin County, 6 Cal. ......
  • Buie v. Hofheinz, No. 12496
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
    • January 29, 1953
    ...Tex.Civ.App., 105 S.W. 543 (wr. Dis.); Eastham Bros. v. Blanchette, 42 Tex.Civ.App. 205, 94 S.W. 441; Hahl v. Deutsch, 42 Tex.Civ.App. 1, 94 S.W. 443; Lyon-Gray Lumber Co. v. Wichita Falls Brick & Tile Co., Tex.Civ.App., 194 S.W. 1167; Murphy v. Williams, 103 Tex. 155, 124 S.W. 900; Nees v.......
  • Melody Home Mfg. Co. v. Morrison, No. 16165
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
    • November 8, 1973
    ...did not undertake to correct the defective conditions. Sec. 2.714 Uniform, Business & Commerce Code; Hahl v. Deutsch, 42 Tex.Civ.App. 1, 94 S.W. 443 (1906, n.w.h.); Aultman & Taylor Co. v. Hefner, 67 Tex. 54, 2 S.W. 861 (1886). Appellant's point of error number 8 is Page 204 We further hold......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT