Loeb v. Winnsboro Cotton Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 07 April 1906 |
| Citation | 93 S.W. 515 |
| Parties | LOEB v. WINNSBORO COTTON OIL CO.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Wood County; R. W. Simpson, Judge.
Action by the Winnsboro Cotton Oil Company against Herman Loeb. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Young & Stinchcomb, for appellant. M. D. Carloch, for appellee.
The Winnsboro Cotton Oil Company, appellee, sued Herman Loeb, appellant, to recover for the failure to receive and pay for 66 bales of cotton linters alleged to have been sold to him by appellee. Upon trial a judgment was rendered for the cotton oil company from which this appeal is prosecuted.
The contract under which Herman Loeb purchased the linters is as follows: Herman Loeb, the appellant, received under this contract 272 bales of cotton linters and paid the contract price, 4½ cents per pound. The output of the mill was 338 bales of linters, and the appellant refused to receive 66 bales, claiming that under the contract he was only bound to receive the maximum estimate of 250 bales. The appellee claiming that appellant under the contract was obligated to take the full output of the mill, and as the 66 bales refused was a part of said output the appellant was bound therefor. After suit was filed it was agreed between the parties that the 66 bales were sold without order of court for $951.15, and said amount was allowed as a credit and judgment was only rendered for $475.57.
The question for solution is: Whether the contract bound appellant to take the full amount of the output of the mill, or whether he was bound only for 250 bales? If the contract price for the linters had remained the same it is more than probable that this controversy would never have arisen, but the price fell and the linters were worth less when tendered for acceptance than when contracted for. The agent who made the contract for appellant testified: "If linters had gone up to 6 or 6½ cents I expect I would have asked that they deliver all their linters no matter how many bales, but I do not think I could have gotten them." This testimony does not control the question, but it tends to show that appellant was buying linters generally, and wanted all he could get. In other words, he was willing to buy the output of the mill, irrespective of what the mill...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Works v. Va. Banner Coal Corp.
...of contracts for sale and purchase of total output or production, with estimates of the quantity, are: Loeb v. Winnsboro Cotton Oil Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 93 S. W. 515; Bautovich v. G. S. Lumber Co., 129 La. 857, 56 So. 1026, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 848; Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Beales, 56 Cal. App.......
-
Mat'n Alkali W'Ks v. V.B.C.C.
...the construction of contracts for sale and purchase of total output or production, with estimates of the quantity, are, Loeb Winnsboro Cotton Oil Co., 93 S.W. 515 (Tex.); Bautovich G. S. Lumber Company, 129 La. 857, 56 So. 1026, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 848; Rosenberg Bros. & Co. Beales, 56 Cal.App......
-
Xray Gas Co. v. Lone Star Gas Co., 1916.
...cases dealing with such contracts are Arcola Sugar Mills Co. v. Farmer Hamlett's Co., Tex.Civ.App., 220 S.W. 385; Loeb v. Winnsboro Cotton Oil Co., Tex.Civ.App., 93 S.W. 515; Texas Farm Bureau Ass'n v. Stovall, 113 Tex. 273, 253 S.W. 1101. Examples of cases in other jurisdictions are Brawle......
-
Cooper v. Fortney
...2, 3 (Vernon 1968); Portland Gasoline Co. v. Superior Marketing Co., 150 Tex. 533, 243 S.W.2d 823 (1951); Loeb v. Winnsboro Cotton Oil Co., 93 S.W. 515 (Tex.Civ.App.1906). In contrast, an ordinary supply contract measures the quantity to be sold by stating a specific, fixed amount. Unlike a......