J. M. Radford Grocery Co. v. Jamison
| Decision Date | 03 April 1924 |
| Docket Number | (No. 1611.) |
| Citation | 260 S.W. 957 |
| Parties | J. M. RADFORD GROCERY CO. v. JAMISON. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Eastland County; E. A. Hill, Judge.
Action by C. T. Jamison against the J. M. Radford Grocery Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals, and plaintiff files a cross-assignment of error. Reversed and remanded.
Davidson & Hickman, of Abilene, and Dabney & Callaway, of Eastland, for appellant.
Grisham Bros., of Eastland, for appellee.
This is the second appeal of this case. The general outline of the cause of action and disposition made of the case on the former appeal will be found in 221 S. W. 998, to which we refer for a more comprehensive statement than we feel necessary to make here.
C. T. Jamison brought this suit against J. M. Radford Grocery Company, a corporation to recover damages, actual and exemplary, on account of an alleged breach of contract on the part of the defendant grocery company to furnish plaintiff certain goods, wares, and merchandise to the value of $2,000, and to furnish plaintiff a line of credit in the retail grocery business to the extent of $2,000, and for taking possession of and converting to its own use and benefit a certain storehouse, an automobile truck of the alleged value of $500, and certain merchandise then in the said storehouse, of the alleged value of $65.43, and for loss of profits at the rate of $25 per day for a period of one year, and stating other matters as grounds for exemplary damages.
The case was tried on the second amended original petition and supplemental petition, setting up in detail the purported contract as above, and its breach; that plaintiff purchased of defendant said automobile truck and storehouse at an agreed valuation of $700, for which he executed his promissory note to plaintiff, and his chattel mortgage on said storehouse and truck to secure its payment; that defendant delivered to him (plaintiff) the storehouse and truck, and merchandise aggregating in value the sum of $1,096.34, and alleged other matters with reference to his grocery business which we need not state here. Plaintiff further alleged that thereafter defendant, through its agent, St. John, forcibly took possession of said storehouse and automobile truck, locking up said house and carrying away said truck, of the value of $500, and said merchandise from said storehouse, of the value of $65.43, and that by reason of the alleged breach of said contract to furnish said goods and said line of credit, and by reason of defendant's said agent closing up said store and carrying away said truck and goods, plaintiff had sustained damages, actual and exemplary, in the sum of $10,565.43, for which he sued; that the acts of defendant in closing the store and carrying away the truck and goods were done through said agent, by force, threats, fraud, and violence, who took possession of said premises, store, and truck, and loaded said truck with said goods, which it unlawfully and willfully took from plaintiff's said store, and unlawfully appropriated to its use and benefit. Plaintiff alleged that he had made payments on said indebtedness of several sums.
Defendant answered by general demurrer, special exceptions, general and special denials, denying the making of the contract, except in so far as it sold plaintiff the said house and automobile truck under the terms of the mortgage; denied the authority of any agent to make such contract as alleged, or that the taking possession of said house and truck was done under the terms of the mortgage. Defendant, by way of reconvention, alleged that it had sold and delivered the goods to plaintiff in the amount as alleged by plaintiff, and that plaintiff was still indebted to defendant for said goods in the sum of $668.79. Defendant pleaded other matters not incident to nor growing out of the matters pleaded by plaintiff, which we need not state.
The court sustained a special exception to the contract pleaded by plaintiff, to which plaintiff excepted, and presents a cross-assignment of error.
The case was tried with a jury, and submitted upon special issues. The court instructed the jury that the only actual damages to which plaintiff was entitled under the evidence was the sum of $65.43, representing the value of the goods taken by defendant from plaintiff's place of business, and submitted to the jury the issues as to whether "plaintiff was entitled to exemplary damages by reason of the manner of the taking of said merchandise,"...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Esparza
...directs the acts to be done or has made them his own, which the evidence does not show was done in this case. J. M. Radford Grocery Co. v. Jamison (Tex. Civ. App.) 260 S. W. 957, and cases there We have concluded that under the undisputed evidence, as we view it, Taylor was not liable for e......
-
J. M. Radford Grocery Co. v. Jamison
...of the honorable Court of Civil Appeals upon first appeal will be found in 221 S. W. 998, and the opinion upon the second appeal in 260 S. W. 957. We refer to said opinions for a more comprehensive statement, and make the following additional statement of history of the C. S. Jamison filed ......