Knutson v. Ripson, A-8485
| Citation | 354 S.W.2d 575,163 Tex. 312 |
| Decision Date | 17 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. A-8485,A-8485 |
| Parties | Emil KNUTSON, Petitioner, v. Sheldon RIPSON et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
Allen, Allen & Reavis Perryton, for petitioner.
Lemon, Close & Atkinson, Perryton, William Norton, Lowden, Iowa, for respondents.
Petitioner, Knutson, brought this suit seeking damages of the breach of a contract whereby Knutson agreed to sell, and the respondents, Ripson, norton and House, agreed to buy approximately 1200 head of cattle. To the following Special Issue 'Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the liability, if any, of the defendants under the contract in question, was not settled and discharged by Emil Knutson by his acceptance of the checks delivered to him by defendants on November 11, 1959?', the jury answered: 'It was settled and discharged.'
The trial court thereupon entered a judgment for defendant that plaintiff take nothing. On appeal, 346 S.W.2d 424, this judgment was reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. Both Knutson and Ripson et al. bring applications for writs of error praying that the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals be reversed and rendered in their favor.
Knutson contends that there is no evidence to support the finding of the jury in answer to the foregoing special issue.
The written contract between the parties provided for the purchase and sale of some 1200 cattle at a stipulated price per pound. The cattle were to be delivered at the option of the purchasers between August 1 and November 15, 1959. The contract further provided that Ripson and his associates would deposit with Knutson the sum of $18,000.00 'as escrow' or 'forfeit money,' which figured $15.00 per head. Three separate lots were delivered on different occasions and settlement made on each delivery. On those occasions Knutson allowed to the purchasers credit for $15.00 per head and deducted those sums from the forfeit money.
Purchasers ahd requested that half of the steers totalling 700 be delivered on September 23rd., but Knutson delivered only 232 steers giving as his reason that he thought Ripson was unreasonable in making that request and 'they were not fat enough for me'. At the time of the last delivery on November 11th. Ripson refused to take more of the steers than had been delivered to him on the last occasion. Whereupon Knutson offered to sell the remainder to him at a reduced price, which offer was rejected.
Thereafter the parties proceeded to the bank where checks were given to Knutson for the 233 head so delivered. In this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Transfer and Storage Co. v. Brown
...is still improper, as it always has been, to submit to the jury a legal question without appropriate instructions. Knutson v. Ripson, 163 Tex. 312, 354 S.W.2d 575, 576 (1962); Kunkel v. Poe Land & Development Co., 393 S.W.2d 191, 194 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1965, no writ); Foerster v. ......
-
Indian Beach Prop. Owners' Ass'n v. Linden
...of discretion." Id. Furthermore, a trial court commits error if it submits a question of law to the jury. See Knutson v. Ripson, 163 Tex. 312, 314, 354 S.W.2d 575, 576 (1962); Hudson Buick, Pontiac, GMC Truck Co. v. Gooch, 7 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1999, pet. denied); Markert v. Wil......
-
Lakeside Vill. Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Belanger
...to the jury. TEX.R.CIV.P. 277. A trial court commits error if it submits a question of law to the jury. See Knutson v. Ripson , 163 Tex. 312, 354 S.W.2d 575, 576 (1962). The restrictions contained in the governing documents are restrictive covenants concerning real property. See TEX.PROP.CO......
-
Town of Flower Mound v. Teague
...82 S.W.3d at 318; Rogers, 89 S.W.3d at 274; Knutson v. Ripson, 346 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex.Civ. App.-Amarillo 1961), aff'd, 163 Tex. 312, 354 S.W.2d 575 (1962); Jones v. Winter, 215 S.W.2d 654, 656 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1948, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its di......