Niles v. Parsons, 2969
| Decision Date | 10 May 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 2969,2969 |
| Parties | NILES v. PARSONS. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Carter & Carter, Marlin, for appellant.
Bartlett & Bartlett, Marlin, for appellee.
Appellee sued appellant for damages on account of the alleged breach of a verbal contract of employment. The case was tried before a jury. Upon the conclusion of the evidence the court submitted four special issues to the jury. The first three issues related to the alleged breach of the contract and the fourth issue was as follows: 'What amount of money, if paid now, do you find from a preponderance of the evidence will compensate plaintiff for the breach of contract, if any, by defendant?' The jury answered the first three issues favorable to the contentions of appellee and returned an answer of $400.00 to the fourth. Thereupon, the court rendered judgment against appellant for the sum of $400.00, and hence this appeal.
Appellant predicates his appeal upon one point of error, viz.: 'The Court erred in submitting Special Issue No. 4 over the written objection of defendant that the same submits an incorrect measure of damages in that the suit was brought before the termination date of the original contract, and that maximum amount recoverable by plaintiff is the amount plaintiff would have received to the date of the trial and not to the end of the original contract period'
The record discloses that appellee entered into the service of appellant on January 1, 1950 under a verbal contract of employment by the terms of which he was to be paid the sum of $100.00 per month for a period of twelve months. Appellant paid for the first five months of service but declined to make any further payment on the ground that appellee had been discharged because he had not complied with the terms of the contract. Appellee instituted the suit on August 25, 1950, claiming $200.00 for the months of June and July and $500.00 for the remaining five months of the year. The case was tried on October 16, 1950. Appellant objected to the submission of Special Issue No. 4 on the ground that it submitted an incorrect measure of the damages recoverable by appellee in that the suit was brought before the termination date of the contract of employment and that the maximum amount recoverable by appellee is the sum he would have received to the date of trial and not to the end of the contract period.
From the record before us we cannot say the trial court erred in submitting Special Issue No. 4 to the jury over the objections interposed by appellant or that such error, if any, was prejudicial to any right of appellant. No objection was made to the submission of such issue or to the court's charge in connection therewith on the ground that the court thereby failed to submit a correct measure of the damages recoverable by appellee. No request was made of the court to give to the jurors any instruction as to what facts they might or might not consider in arriving at the amount of money which, if paid at the time of the trial, would compensate appellee for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Ayers, No. W2006-02441-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. 5/6/2008)
-
Dixie Glass Co. v. Pollak
...Carpenter, Tex.Civ.App., 300 S.W. 963; Weber Gas & Gasoline Engine Company v. Bradford, 34 Tex.Civ.App. 543, 79 S.W. 46; Niles v. Parsons, Tex.Civ.App., 239 S.W.2d 740; Golden Rod Mills v. Green, Tex.Civ.App., 230 S.W. 1089, error dism.; Pacific Express v. Walters, 42 Tex.Civ.App., 355, 93 ......
-
Thomas v. Callaway
...T.R.C.P.; McMahan v. Musgrave, Tex.Civ.App., 229 S.W.2d 894; Southwest Stone Co. v. Symons, Tex.Civ.App., 237 S.W.2d 380; Niles v. Parsons, Tex.Civ.App., 239 S.W.2d 740. By his points twenty-two, twenty-three and twenty-four, appellant contends that special issues Nos. 28 and 29 should not ......
- Tyree v. State, No. M2008-01273-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. 8/21/2009)