McDaniel v. State Fair
Decision Date | 22 May 1926 |
Docket Number | (No. 9645.) |
Citation | 286 S.W. 513 |
Parties | McDANIEL v. STATE FAIR OF TEXAS.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; T. A. Work, Judge.
Action by W. A. McDaniel against the State Fair of Texas. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Etheridge, McCormick & Bromberg, of Dallas, for appellant.
Thompson, Knight, Baker & Harris and Alex F. Weisberg, all of Dallas, for appellee.
In the trial court appellant by his cause of action sought to hold appellee liable for certain merchandise sold and services rendered to one Jack Webster Harkrider, the basis of the action being the following written contract:
Appellant alleged the liability of appellee to be that of a "joint adventurer" with said Harkrider, the liability sought to be enforced being claimed to have issued out of the making and performance of the terms of said contract by the parties thereto.
Appellant alleged that by the execution of said contract in writing appellee and said Harkrider associated themselves together as joint adventurers in the production of a theatrical spectacle known as the Texas Centennial Pageant; that appellee contributed to the enterprise the use of its exhibition grounds, its stadium, tickets of admission, ticket sellers, ushers, police protection, and certain advertising and other services, while Harkrider contributed his services and skill as managing director and producer; and that, on October 8, 1921, said pageant was produced by appellee and Harkrider; that thereafter the proceeds or revenue realized from the sale of tickets was divided between said parties in accordance with said contract; that by reason of its participation in said joint adventure, appellee was indebted to appellant in the sum of $19,702.95 with legal interest from January 1, 1922, on account of (a) the contract in writing wherein appellee and Harkrider, acting through said Harkrider, jointly and severally, promised to pay appellant the sum of $3,000 for furnishing a 60-piece orchestra for said pageant, which contract had been by him performed; (b) an implied contract whereby appellee and Harkrider jointly and severally bound themselves to pay appellant the sum of $240, said sum being the reasonable value of extras furnished and provided by appellant at the special instance and request of appellee and Harkrider, acting through the latter; (c) 36 other claims which had theretofore been assigned to appellant for a valuable consideration by the owners thereof, aggregating the sum of $16,462,95, for merchandise sold and services furnished and provided for use in said pageant by divers persons, firms, and corporations, and for which appellee and Hardrider, acting through said Harkrider, jointly and severally bound themselves to pay. Appellant alleged that Harkrider was a nonresident, wholly insolvent, and prayed for judgment against appellee for the aggregate sum of $19,702.95.
As to appellee's answer, it is only necessary to state that same included a general denial, special answer denying under oath that it was ever associated with said Harkrider as a partner or joint adventurer in any of the matters and things alleged by appellant, and denying that any of the contracts alleged by appellant were entered into by it or by any one on its behalf, by or with its knowledge, consent, or authority; that appellant and each of his assignors know and were informed that said bills were incurred by Harkrider solely on his own responsibility; and that same would not constitute bills or claims against appellee.
On the 27th day of March, 1925, the jury returned a verdict in favor of appellee under peremptory instructions of the court, on which verdict the judgment appealed from was rendered denying appellant the right of recovery. It is not claimed that appellant or any of his assignors looked to the credit of appellee in furnishing merchandise or services to Harkrider, or that appellee in any way held out or authorized Harkrider as its agent to purchase the goods and secure the services for value of which appellant sues, or that Harkrider in any manner, or on a single occasion, pretended to be contracting for appellee. The only evidence introduced with reference to the contract or sought to be elicited by either party to the suit is to the effect that the contract was carried out and performed exactly as written, and there is no dispute in the evidence about that. We find that the terms and provisions of said contract obligatory on the parties thereto were by them respectively kept and performed; that Harkrider entered into a written contract with appellant under which appellant agreed to furnish, and did furnish, a 60-piece orchestra for five rehearsals and one night performance on October 8, 1921, for an agreed price of $3,000; that the orchestra played at the pageant; and that, in addition thereto, appellant and his musicians, by arrangement with Harkrider, worked overtime, and that he put on three extra people; that the reasonable value of such extra service is the sum of $240; and that appellant had never been paid any part of either of said sums; that the 36 assigned claims declared on by appellant were proved by the introduction in evidence of the original assignments; that these claims, aggregating $16,462.95, were assigned to the appellant by various persons, firms, and corporations, and were for goods, wares, and merchandise sold to and services rendered by such persons, firms, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Little v. Laurendine
... ... benefit or profits. McDonough et al. v. Bullock, 2 Pears ... (Pa.) 191; McDaniel v. State Fair ... (Tex.Civ.App.) 286 S.W. 513. Contribution of money, ... material, or services, joint ownership or joint proprietary ... ...
-
Austin Bldg. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 16718
...Barrow, 237 S.W.2d 730 (Tex.Civ.App., no writ hist.); Fischer v. McMaster, 73 S.W.2d 554 (Tex.Civ.App., no writ hist.); McDaniel v. State Fair of Texas, 286 S.W. 513 (Tex.Civ.App., writ ref.); Emberson v. McKenna, 16 S.W. 419 (Tex.Civ.App.); 33 Tex.Jur.2d Applying the principles enunciated ......
-
Luling Oil & Gas Co. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.
...Co. v. Strauss, Tex.Civ.App., 243 S.W. 528; Whatley v. Cato Oil Co., Inc. et al., Tex. Civ.App., 115 S.W.2d 1205; McDaniel v. State Fair of Texas, Tex.Civ.App., 286 S. W. 513; Burton-Lingo Co. v. Federal Glass & Paint Co., Tex.Civ.App., 54 S.W. 2d 170. The relationship of partners, joint ad......
-
Fuller v. Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Inc.
...is a mutual sharing of losses and profits by the parties. Brown v. Cole, 155 Tex. 624, 291 S.W.2d 704, 59 A.L.R.2d 1011; McDaniel v. State Fair of Texas, 286 S.W. 513, Dallas Court of Civil Appeals, writ I am not in agreement with the majority holding that a cause of action based on neglige......