Paine v. Hart-Parr Co.
| Decision Date | 02 March 1921 |
| Docket Number | (No. 167-3169.) |
| Citation | 228 S.W. 121 |
| Parties | PAINE et al. v. HART-PARR CO. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Suit by H. A. Paine and others against the Hart-Parr Company. From judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, which reversed and remanded (199 S. W. 822), and plaintiffs bring error. Judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and cause remanded to such court for consideration of defendant's assignments of error.
Andrews, Streetman, Burns & Logue, of Houston, for plaintiffs in error.
B. F. Louis, of Houston, for defendant in error.
Plaintiffs sued defendant, a corporation, alleging in substance: That they jointly and as partners entered into a contract with defendant whereby they became its agent in Houston and surrounding territory to sell and distribute machinery and supplies manufactured by defendant at its plant, and to perform other duties as such agents.
That in pursuance with the agreement they took charge of defendant's plant and warehouse, and expended considerable sums of money as contemplated, in preparation for business reasonably expected would be done—from which they were to recover commissions.
That subsequently a disagreement arose involving a variety of matters, in which each charged the other with violations of the agreement; and as a result it became apparent that they would be unable to satisfactorily conduct the business, and plaintiffs gave notice of cancellation of the contract and demanded settlement.
That in response to said notice defendant sent its authorized agent to adjust the differences between the parties, who entered into a compromise agreement in behalf of defendant, whereby plaintiffs should pay the sum of $323.43 to defendant and defendant should pay the sum of $1,538.00 to plaintiffs.
That said $1,538.00 was the amount which defendant's agent agreed to pay plaintiffs in full settlement and satisfaction of all demands by them against defendant, and that in consideration of such compromise and settlement, defendant's agent promised, bound, and obligated defendant to pay said sum, and to accept $323.43 as representing the amount due it.
That, although often requested, defendant failed and refused, and now fails and refuses, to pay said sum of $1,538.00, or any part thereof, to the plaintiffs' damage. There was a prayer for general relief.
A general demurrer was interposed to the petition and overruled, and the cause submitted to the jury upon special issues. The issues having been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Rhyne
...Stallings v. Wood (Tex. Civ. App.) 267 S. W. 537; State Banking Board v. Pilcher (Tex. Civ. App.) 256 S. W. 996; Paine v. Hart-Parr Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 228 S. W. 121; Watson v. Harris, 61 Tex. Civ. App. 263, 130 S. W. 240; Hovencamp v. Union Stockyards Co., 107 Tex. 421, 180 S. W. 225; Dav......
-
Consolidated Underwriters v. Adams, 5472.
...have removed the effect of sustaining said general demurrer." Erie Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Grimos, 82 Tex. 89, 17 S.W. 831; Paine v. Hart-Parr Co., Tex.Com.App., 228 S.W. 121; Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. v. Woodward, 18 Tex.Civ.App. 496, 45 S.W. 185, writ Appellant's second proposition relates to......
-
Robison v. City of Wichita Falls, 3385.
...of a pleading, when its sufficiency is challenged by a general demurrer, that every reasonable presumption (Paine v. Hart-Parr Co. [Tex. Com. App.] 228 S. W. 121) and every reasonable intendment (Liberto v. Sanders [Tex. Com. App.] 259 S. W. 1080) must be indulged in favor of its sufficienc......
-
State Banking Board v. Pilcher
...alleged, where it is apparent from the entire pleading a legal right has been invaded or withheld. In the case of Paine et al. v. Hart-Parr Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 228 S. W. 121, suit was brought for breach of contract. The petition did not allege any time at which defendant agreed to pay the ......