Norton v. W. H. Thomas & Sons Co.
| Decision Date | 11 April 1906 |
| Citation | 93 S.W. 711 |
| Parties | NORTON v. W. H. THOMAS & SONS CO.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Galveston County; Robt. G. Street, Judge.
Action by the W. H. Thomas & Sons Company against H. N. Norton. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
In 1902 W. H. Thomas & Sons Company, incorporated under the laws of Kentucky, entered into a contract with H. N. Norton, a resident of Galveston, Tex., whereby it agreed to sell Norton 50 barrels of whisky of a named brand and age at a stipulated price per gallon. Under the agreement the corporation was to ship 100 barrels from Germany to Galveston, the first 50 barrels to be a credit sale, and Norton to have the option to take the second 50 barrels at the same price for cash. In pursuance of this agreement, the whisky was shipped to Galveston, and Norton took and finally paid for the first 50 barrels according to the contract. The president of the corporation being in Galveston, sought to induce him to take the other 50 barrels, but Norton declined to exercise his option, giving business reasons. As an inducement, the company agreed that it would not sell in Galveston, Beaumont, or Houston any liquor of that brand until Norton had closed out his purchase. Norton accepted the proposition, and executed his notes to the corporation. Having defaulted in payment, the corporation brought this suit to enforce payment.
R. H. & Alice S. Tiernan, for appellant. E. P. Gailey, for appellee.
This suit was brought in the district court of Galveston county, Tex., by W. H. Thomas & Sons Co., a Kentucky corporation, to recover of H. N. Norton, a citizen of that county, upon certain promissory notes executed for the purposes, and under the circumstances disclosed in the certificate of this court to the Supreme Court which will be found embodied in the opinion of that court upon the certified question. It is here referred to for statement.
In an effort to reverse the judgment of the court below two questions are made by appellant Norton. The first, to the effect that the transaction was in violation of the anti-trust law of 1899 (Laws 1899, p. 246, c. 146), was answered by the Supreme Court adversely to the contention of appellant, in response to the certificate of this court.
The second question is made by demurrer pointing out that though the petition shows plaintiff to be a foreign corporation, and that the notes were executed,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cooper v. Ft. Smith & W. R. Co.
...within the provisions of the statute. Diamond Glue Co. v. U. S. Glue Co. 187 U.S. 611; Hogan v. St. Louis, 176 Mo. 149; Norton v. Thomas (Texas) 93 S.W. 711. Const. of Okla., art. 9, §§ 43, 44, constitute no bar to the action on notes. Const. Schedule, § 1; Sherwood v. Wilkins, 65 Ark. 312.......
-
Bonham Nat. Bank of Fairbury v. Grimes Pass Placer Mining Co., Ltd.
... ... (Brown v. Guarantee Sav. Loan ... & Inv. Co., 46 Tex. Civ. App. 295, 102 S.W. 138; Norton ... v. Thomas & Sons Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 93 S.W. 711.) ... Taking ... assignment of ... ...
-
Lee v. Galena-Signal Oil Co.
...Mfg. Co. v. Gray, 59 Tex. Civ. App. 617, 126 S. W. 610; King v. Monitor Drill Co., 42 Tex. Civ. App. 288, 92 S. W. 1046; Norton v. Thomas (Tex. Civ. App.) 93 S. W. 711. It follows from these conclusions that the denial of the plea was error; the judgment will therefore be reversed and the c......
-
A. B. Richards Medicine Co. v. Johnson, (No. 9175.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>
...benefit of the latter it is not necessary to assign any excuse for not taking an appeal — [citing 14 Tex. 370; 16 Tex. 590; 60 S. W. 277; 93 S. W. 711.]" The statutes of this state regulating the filing of pleas of privilege, the trial of contests arising thereunder, and the right of appeal......