Lane Co. v. Crum

• Decision Date: 02 March 1927
• Docket Number: (No. 910-4674.)
• Citation: 291 S.W. 1084
• Parties: LANE CO. v. CRUM et al.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

291 S.W. 1084

LANE CO. v. CRUM et al.

(No. 910-4674.)

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

March 2, 1927.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Tenth Supreme Judicial District.

Action by the Lane Company against Mrs. B. V. Crum and another. Judgment for plaintiff was reversed and rendered by the Court of Civil Appeals (284 S. W. 980), and plaintiff brings error. Judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and judgment of the trial court affirmed.

Williamson & McDonnell, of Waco, for plaintiff in error.

Hilton, Howell and Spell, Naman & Penland, all of Waco, for defendants in error.

HARVEY, P. J.

On June 24, 1924, W. E. Williams, under the trade-name of Cascade Products Company, entered into a contract in writing with the Lane Company, with reference to the delivery by the Cascade Company to the Lane Company of a certain number of washing machines. The contract is set out in full in the majority opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals. It is unnecessary to a decision here that we determine whether such contract constitutes a sale contract or merely an agency agreement. In September, 1924, the number of machines called for in the contract were delivered by the Cascade Company to the Lane Company, who declined to accept them but held them subject to the order of the Cascade Company.

At the time the contract above mentioned was made, and as a part of the transaction, the Lane Company accepted three trade acceptances or drafts drawn by the Cascade Company, each for the sum of $378, and payable respectively 60, 90, and 120 days after date. The form of these instruments is such as to make them negotiable instruments, unless the clause appearing in each of them, which is hereinafter stated, renders them nonnegotiable instruments.

On October 29, 1924, the Lane Company brought this suit against W. E. Williams and Mrs. B. V. Crum to cancel these three trade acceptances on the ground that the washing machines were not as represented, and the machines were tendered to the defendants. Mrs. Crum answered by a cross-action seeking to recover on the trade acceptances, alleging that she was an innocent holder thereof in due course of trade, for value, before maturity The cause was tried before a jury and resulted in a judgment being rendered canceling the three trade acceptances and awarding to Mrs. Crum the washing machines. On appeal, this judgment was reversed by the court of Civil Appeals, and judgment rendered by that court for Mrs. Crum on the trade acceptances (284 S. W. 980); Associate Justice Stanford dissenting.

The contention of the Lane Company is that the following clause of the trade acceptances renders same nonnegotiable and therefore subject to the rights and equities of said company...