Lennox v. Texas Farm Bureau Cotton Ass'n
Decision Date | 11 April 1929 |
Docket Number | (No. 3603.) |
Citation | 16 S.W.2d 413 |
Parties | LENNOX et al. v. TEXAS FARM BUREAU COTTON ASS'N. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Red River County; R. J. Williams, Judge.
Suit by H. H. Lennox and another against the Texas Farm Bureau Cotton Association, wherein defendant filed a cross-action. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
See, also, 257 S. W. 935; 283 S. W. 619; 296 S. W. 325, 328; 297 S. W. 743.
King, Mahaffey & Wheeler, of Texarkana, and Lennox & Lennox, of Clarksville, for appellants.
Aaron Sapiro, of New York City, C. K. Bullard, of Dallas, Long & Wortham, of Paris, and Robbins & Bailey, of Clarksville, for appellee.
The appellants are partners engaged in the practice of law in Clarksville, Red River county, Tex., under the firm name of Lennox & Lennox, and were such before this controversy arose. They were also jointly interested in growing cotton through tenants on land which they jointly owned. On or about June 30, 1921, they signed a written agreement, then being circulated among the growers of agricultural products, for the purpose of forming a marketing association or corporation, under the provisions of an act of the Legislature adopted in 1921 and appearing as chapter 8, title 93, Revised Civil Statutes of 1925. The following are the material portions of that agreement:
etc.
The marketing agreement referred to provides, among other things, that the association agrees to buy and the grower to sell and deliver to the association all the cotton produced or acquired by or for him in Texas during the years 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, and 1925. The association was to endeavor to sell the cotton gradually as the spinning industry required, and at the best possible prices. The marketing agreement further provided that since a remedy at law for its breach was inadequate, the grower became liable for five cents per pound, middling basis, as liquidated damages, "for all cotton delivered, sold, consigned, withheld or marketed by or for him, other than in accordance with the terms" thereof. It also provided that, in the event the grower threatens a breach "of any provision regarding delivery of cotton, the association shall be entitled to an injunction to prevent breach," and that, if the association brings an action for the breach, or a threatened breach, "the grower agrees to pay to the association all costs of court, costs for bonds," traveling expenses, and reasonable attorney's fees.
The committee in charge of the program for organizing the association failed to secure the signatures of persons eligible to membership covering as many as 1,000,000 bales of cotton of the 1920 crop by July 1, 1921, and decided to proceed under the provisions of subdivision (b) of section 13 of the agreement, which provided that an organization might be perfected if signatures covering at least 500,000 bales remained uncanceled by August 1. Appropriate notices were sent out to the signers of the organization contract, after which it was determined by the committee that signatures covering as many as 500,000 bales of cotton for the 1920 crop remained uncanceled, and the corporation was organized on July 27, 1921, to become effective on August 1 following.
Some time later appellants, becoming dissatisfied with the manner in which the association conducted its business, filed this suit in the district court of Red River county in October, 1922. In their original petition they stated two distinct causes of action. In one they sought a cancellation of their contract with the association on the ground of fraud and other conditions which need not be here stated. In the other they sought damages for the breach of a special contract under which they delivered to the association, for sale, 1,095 bales of cotton.
The first trial was upon a plea of privilege filed by the association, which was overruled, and that ruling affirmed on appeal. See (Tex. Civ. App.) 257 S. W. 935. Thereafter the association filed an amended answer and cross-action, in which the marketing agreement was pleaded...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gorman v. Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Co.
......999, sec. 42; 58. C. J. 923, sec. 87; Lennox v. Texas Farm Bureau Cotton. Assn. (Tex.), 16 ......
-
Flatte v. Kossman Buick Co.
...any deficiency in appellee's petition. Davies v. Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n, Tex.Com.App., 16 S.W.2d 524; Lennox v. Texas Farm Bureau Cotton Ass'n, Tex.Civ.App., 16 S.W.2d 413, wr. ref.; 42 T.J., p. 551, sec. 38, and authorities cited to support the text; 71 C.J.S., Pleading, § 590, sub-se......
-
Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, Inc. v. Campesi
...to the by-laws. See Texas Farm Bureau Cotton Ass'n v. Stovall, 113 Tex. 273, 253 S.W. 1101 (1923); Lennox v. Texas Cotton Ass'n, 16 S.W.2d 413 (Tex.Civ.App. Texarkana 1929, writ ref'd), On second appeal, Lennox v. Texas Cotton Co-Op. Ass'n, 55 S.W.2d 543 (Tex.Com.App.1932, holding We conclu......