McConnon & Co. v. McCormick

Citation179 S.W. 275
Decision Date19 June 1915
Docket Number(No. 7391.)
PartiesMcCONNON & CO. v. McCORMICK et al.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

Appeal from District Court, Kaufman County; F. L. Hawkins, Judge.

Action by McConnon & Co., a corporation, against W. A. McCormick and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Terry & Brown, of Kaufman, and Tawney, Smith & Tawney, of Winona, Minn., for appellant. Fred Rogers, of Dallas, for appellees.

TALBOT, J.

The appellant in this case is a Minnesota corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of proprietary medicines, extracts, spices, stock tonics, and other articles. On the 23d day of January, 1911, it entered into a written contract with the appellee W. A. McCormick, of Kaufman county, Tex., by the terms of which appellant agreed to sell and deliver to said appellee f. o. b. cars at Winona, Minn., in such reasonable quantities as the appellee might from time to time require in Kaufman county, Tex., or in such other territory as appellant might direct at the usual and customary wholesale prices at which the same are sold and delivered by appellant in other similar territories. The appellee upon his part agreed to sell goods delivered to him under the contract in Kaufman county, Tex., or such other territory as the appellant might direct from the date of the contract until the 1st day of March, 1912, at which time the agreement should terminate. It was further stipulated in the contract that appellee should keep a complete record of the goods disposed of in his territory and on hand and to make a written report of the same to appellant as it might require, and that at the expiration of the contract appellee would pay to appellant the whole amount then remaining unpaid for goods sold and delivered to him. The contract was signed by appellant in its corporate name, by Henry J. McConnon, president, and by appellee W. A. McCormick. Indorsed on or attached to this contract is a writing signed by the appellees M. L. McCormick and W. E. Jones in which they, for the recited consideration of $1, the execution of the written contract sued on by appellant, and the sale and delivery of its goods to the appellee McCormick, jointly and severally guarantee to the appellant the full payment of all indebtedness of appellee W. A. McCormick to appellant according to the terms and conditions of the contract executed by appellant and said appellee. On March 14, 1913, appellant instituted this suit against the appellees, W. A. McCormick, M. L. McCormick, and W. E. Jones, to recover the sum of $878.28 alleged to be the balance due and unpaid for goods sold to appellee W. A. McCormick under the contracts mentioned. In answer to appellant's suit, the appellee W. A. McCormick, alleged fraudulent representations made to him by one J. H. Sturdevant, charged to be the agent of appellant, which, he says, induced him to sign the contract sued on, the nature of which alleged representations will sufficiently appear in the discussion of the questions raised by the assignments of error. The appellees M. L. McCormick and W. E. Jones also filed answers, but we deem it unnecessary, in view of the disposition we shall make of the appeal, to state the nature of their answers. The case was tried and submitted to a jury on special issues, and, their findings being favorable to appellees, judgment was rendered thereon that appellant take nothing by its suit, and that the appellees recover their costs. Appellant filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and it appealed.

A consideration of appellant's first assignment of error is objected to, in effect, on the grounds that it is multifarious, does not definitely point out the several errors complained of, and is not followed by a sufficient statement in explanation and support thereof to enable the court to determine the questions raised without searching the record for the facts in relation thereto. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • McConnon v. Holden
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • February 13, 1922
    ...... M. Adams, and Homer C. Mills, for Appellant. . . This. contract is one of sale and not agency, and statements of. defendant as to his own status as an agent are inadmissible. (Watkins Medical Co. v. Holloway, 182 Mo.App. 140,. 168 S.W. 290; McConnon & Co. v. McCormick (Tex. Civ.), 179 S.W. 275; McConnon & Co. v. Haskins (Mo. App.), 180 S.W. 21; Saginaw Medicine Co. v. Batey, 179 Mich. 651, 146 N.W. 329; Dr. Koch. Vegetable Tea Co. v. Malone (Tex. Civ.), 163 S.W. 662;. W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Van Duyn, 32 Idaho 767, 188 P. 945; W. T. Rawleigh Medical Co. v. ......
  • Saginaw Medicine Co. v. Dykes
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 11, 1922
    ...(1) The following cases have overruled practically every defense that could be raised under contracts of this kind: McConnon & Co. v. McCormack, 179 S.W. 275; Sioux Remedy Co. Cope, 235 U.S. 197; J. R. Watkins Co. v. Halloway, 181 S.W. 602; McConnon & Co. v. Haskins, 182 Mo.App. 140, 180 S.......
  • Land v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • October 26, 1916
    ...177 S. W. 1005; Foster v. Bennett, 178 S. W. 1001; Rainey v. Old, 180 S. W. 923; Browder v. School District, 172 S. W. 152; McConnon v. McCormick, 179 S. W. 275; Killman v. Young, 171 S. W. By the second assignment complaint is made of the first paragraph of the charge, which reads as follo......
  • J. R. Watkins Medical Company v. Hogue
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • March 24, 1919

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT