Indiana Road-Mach. Co. v. City of Sulphur Springs
| Decision Date | 06 April 1901 |
| Citation | 63 S.W. 908 |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
| Parties | INDIANA ROAD-MACH. CO. v. CITY OF SULPHUR SPRINGS. |
Appeal from district court, Hopkins county; Howard Templeton, Judge.
Action by the Indiana Road-Machine Company against the city of Sulphur Springs. From a judgment in favor of the defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
V. M. Clark, for appellant. Crosby & Dinsmore, for appellee.
This suit was brought by appellant, as plaintiff, against the appellee, as defendant, in the district court of Hopkins county, to the August term, 1899, for damages by reason of an alleged breach of contract by appellee in the refusal of appellee to receive and pay for a road machine alleged to have been sold by appellant to appellee on the 3d day of March, 1899, upon a written contract by the terms of which the said road machine was to be forwarded to appellee at Sulphur Springs, Tex., on the 1st day of June, 1899, at a stipulated price; appellee having, by express provision in such contract, the right to countermand its order for said machine at any time before the 1st day of June, 1899. Appellant alleges compliance on its part with all the provisions of the contract, and alleges a breach of the contract on the part of appellee by the refusal of appellee to receive said road machine when it was tendered to appellee at Sulphur Springs, Tex., about the 15th day of June, 1899. There were three counts in appellant's petition, the cause of action alleged being the same in each, and differing only in the allegations with respect to the manner in which, and the means by which, appellee executed the said contract and became bound by it. The first count alleges that the appellee executed the said contract by authority of an ordinance of the city council, regularly passed, authorizing, empowering, and directing M. G. Miller, then the mayor of appellee, to make said contract. The second count alleges that the said contract was executed by the appellee, acting through its said mayor, M. G. Miller, and alleging that if the said M. G. Miller, mayor, made said contract without authority, said contract was afterwards ratified by appellee through its board of aldermen, by the said board of aldermen failing to countermand the said order, and further alleging that appellee's board of aldermen by a resolution ratified and confirmed the said contract. The third count alleges that the said M. G. Miller was the chairman of appellee's street committee, and that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brazos River Authority v. City of Graham
...26 S.W. 636, no writ hist.; City of Tyler v. Adams, Tex.Civ.App., 62 S.W. 119, no writ hist.; Indiana Road Mach. Co. v. City of Sulphur Springs, Tex.Civ.App., 63 S.W. 908, no writ hist.; 30-A Tex.Jur.; Municipal Corporations § 449. There is nothing in the record which would support a findin......
-
W. W. Cook & Son v. The City of Cameron
... ... Road ... Machine v. Sulphur Springs, 63 S.W. 908, 28 Cyc., 670, ... 671. (8) A contractor cannot ... ...
-
First Nat. Bank of Marlin v. Dupuy
...761; King v. Guerra, Tex.Civ.App., 1 S.W. 2d 373; City of Denison v. Smith, Tex.Civ. App., 260 S.W. 207; Indiana Road Mach. Co. v. City of Sulphur Springs, Tex.Civ. App., 63 S.W. 908; Penn v. City of Laredo, Tex.Civ.App., 26 S.W. 636. The same rule applies to schools and school districts. 3......
-
City of Greenville v. Emerson
...v. First Baptist Church of Fort Worth, 268 S.W. 1016, 1020-1022 (Tex.Civ.App.--Ft. Worth 1924, no writ); Indiana Road Mach. Co. v. City of Sulphur Springs, 63 S.W. 908, 908-09 (Tex.Civ.App.1901, no Lastly, again assuming that a contract existed, it would be in violation of article three, se......