Hooper v. Bell, 11812.
Decision Date | 07 April 1948 |
Docket Number | No. 11812.,11812. |
Citation | 210 S.W.2d 870 |
Parties | HOOPER et al. v. BELL. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Ninety-Second District, Hidalgo County; W. R. Blalock, Judge.
Action by Everett Bell against Warren Hooper and others, doing business as the Phar-Tex Fruit Company, and another to recover amount allegedly due under a contract for sale of fruit. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Magus F. Smith, Samuel L. Oakleaf and E. A. McDaniel, all of McAllen, for appellants.
L. A. Smith, of Mission, and Tom L. Hartley, of Pharr, for appellee.
This is a suit brought by Everett Bell, plaintiff, against Warren Hooper, Marko Dizdar and Barney Horvich, doing business as the Phar-Tex Fruit Company. United States Casualty Company of New York, surety upon a bond executed for Phar-Tex Fruit Company, in conformity with the Texas Citrus Growers' Act, Article 118b, Vernon's Ann.Civ.Stats., Article 1700a — 3, Vernon's Ann.Penal Code, was also named as defendant. Trial was to a jury and judgment rendered against the defendants, including the surety company, for the sum of $5,000. An additional recovery of $2,627.21, against the owners of Phar-Tex Fruit Company was also allowed.
All defendants have appealed. Hooper, Dizdar and Horvich will hereinafter be referred to as defendants, as in the trial court. The dates and times mentioned refer to the 1946-47 citrus fruit season in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. The events pertinent here took place during the period of time from October, 1946, up to and including February, 1947.
On October 18, plaintiff and defendants entered into the following contract:
"Phar-Tex Fruit Company
Growers, Packers, Shippers of Citrus Fruit.
Phone 118 P. O. Box 534 Pharr, Texas Date 10/18/1946 Bought of Everett Bell, Tel. 6018F14
Kind of Produce, Grape Fruit & Oranges as listed below
Clear trees of all fruit by Feb. 15/47.
Probable Harvesting Date, Weather Permitting —
Ring Pick 80 & up now and again Dec. provided justifiable.
Buyer not liable for damages caused by any Act of God prior to harvesting. Owner or Seller hereby warrants that the commodities covered by this contract are not mortgaged and seller hereby states that he has not been induced or persuaded to sell such commodities at the price herein named by any representation as to the market by buyer but has made his own independent investigation of same, and further that he has not been induced or persuaded by buyer to breach any contract heretofore executed by seller covering the same commodities. This contract, including the probable harvesting date, is subject to all regulations of State and Federal Governments and laws.
Remarks: Formage basis Marsh Pink — $55.00 Foster Pinks — $55.00 Early Oranges — $55.00 Marsh White — $25.00
Weight P. S. Mission
All terms of this agreement have herein been reduced to writing.
/S/ Everett Bell — Grower Seller, Owner Agent Fred W. Volz, Buyer."
Shortly after the execution of the contract, defendants harvested size eighty (to a standard fruit box) and larger from plaintiff's orchard.
About November 29th, plaintiff and defendants had conversations with reference to further picking of fruit. In connection therewith the jury found that on said date "Plaintiff Bell and Defendants Hooper and Dizdar entered into an agreement that Bell's entire grove could be picked for size 96s and larger grapefruit."
On November 30th, defendants started picking fruit from the Bell orchard, but plaintiff discovered that instead of taking 96s and larger, defendants were picking 80s and larger. Bell called the defendant Horvich and "asked what was the reason for making a deal with him to pick 96s, and without consulting (him) coming out and picking 80s." According to Bell, Horvich then asserted the right to pick any size fruit any time he wanted to.
Bell testified that he refused to allow defendants to pick 80s unless they also took the smaller fruit; that Horvich said that he didn't want this smaller fruit and "he (Horvich) told me to send the trucks home."
Shortly thereafter, Bell received a letter which stated:
Defendants contend that under the contract they were entitled to pick the fruit at any time so long as they cleaned the trees by February 15th, and that plaintiff's action of November 30, 1946, amounted to a repudiation of the contract which authorized defendants to treat the same as no longer effective.
In line with this contention it is asserted that the oral agreement of November 29th (as found by the jury) was of no effect because it was not supported by a consideration, and evidence relating thereto was admitted in violation of the parol evidence rule.
The position of the parties and the trial court's ruling is made clear by the following excerpt from the Statement of Facts:
Mr. Hartley (plaintiff's attorney):
It seems to us that the all important question which arose is this: Did Bell by refusing to allow defendants to pick 80s or better on November 30th, repudiate the contract? On this point the supplementary agreement or negotiations of November 29th are of importance. We may assume for the present purpose that under the written contract, the defendants were entitled to pick any size fruit at any time they desired. Had there been no subsequent negotiations or agreements, Bell's action in refusing to allow defendants to pick 80s or better would come close to a repudiation of the contract. However, if there had been a subsequent agreement as to 96s, Bell's refusal to allow defendants to pick 80s assumes a different aspect. The refusal is referable to subsequent agreement relating to 96s and not to the original written agreement. And this is true regardless of the technical sufficiency of the supplemental agreement, for the issue here is not one of unauthorized variation from the terms of a contract, but, rather, a question of whether or not a contract has been repudiated.
The contract involved was upon a printed form prepared for and used by defendants in their purchases of grapefruit and oranges during the 1946-47 fruit season. The words, "Ring Pick 80 & up now and again Dec. provided justifiable." (italicized in the contract above set out) were written into the contract immediately after the printed words: "Probable Harvesting Date, Weather Permitting."
The main controversy centers around these words. Defendants contend that "now and again Dec." were plainly stated as probable harvesting dates and the clear import of the agreement was that the fruit could be picked at any time.
Plaintiff makes some contention that having picked the orchard for 80s at the time the contract was made, defendants were not entitled to pick 80s again until December, and the judgment could be supported upon the theory that a peremptory instruction for plai...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bohman v. Berg
...679 (did parties intent to be bound by this agreement); Beni v. Frasca, 1940, 259 App.Div. 844, 19 N.Y.S.2d 223, 228; Hooper v. Bell, Tex.Civ.App.1948, 210 S.W.2d 870, 875; Casper Nat. Bank v. Curry, 1937, 51 Wyo. 284, 65 P.2d 1116, 110 A.L.R. 360; General Paint Corporation v. Kramer, 10 Ci......
-
Moffitt v. Hieby
...which had to be separated from the ruby red. This Court in construing a very similar contract recognized it as executory. Hooper v. Bell, Tex.Civ.App., 210 S.W.2d 870. The writer of this opinion dissented in that case, but not upon this point. It is true that the contract uses the word 'bou......
-
Gage v. Wimberley
...979; 17A. C.J.S. Contracts § 472(1), page 652 et seq.; 13 Tex.Jur.2d, section 309, pages 561--565; Hooper v. Bell, 210 S.W.2d 870 (Tex.Civ.App., San Antonio, 1948, writ ref., n.r.e.). By point 14, appellants Gage contend, in effect, that the Wimberleys were not entitled to have the contract......
-
Flow v. Friesen
...This memorandum is very similar to that involved in the case of Hooper v. Bell, Tex.Civ.App., 210 S.W.2d 870, recently considered by this Court. However, parol evidence as to identity of the subject matter is probably stronger in this Friesen, the appellee, testified in detail with referenc......