San Antonio Machine & Supply Co. v. Allen
| Decision Date | 21 January 1925 |
| Docket Number | (No. 7258.) |
| Citation | 268 S.W. 532 |
| Parties | SAN ANTONIO MACHINE & SUPPLY CO. v. ALLEN. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Nueces County; W. B. Hopkins, Judge.
Action by J. W. Allen against the San Antonio Machine & Supply Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
J. C. Scott, of Corpus Christi, and Goeth, Webb & Goeth, of San Antonio, for appellant.
J. D. Todd, of Corpus Christi, for appellee.
Appellee was employed by appellant as a traveling salesman for several years prior to 1920, at the beginning of which year the parties made a new contract, evidenced by the following writing:
At the end of the year appellee made demand upon appellant for a commission of 2 per cent., not only upon all sales made by him in person in the designated territory, but upon all sales made therein by appellant through all other sources as well; that is to say, upon all sales in excess of $75,000, and excluding carload business and special machinery sales. The company refused to pay the amount, contending that under the contract it was obligated to pay the commission only upon sales made through appellee in person. This suit followed, and appellee recovered in accordance with his contention.
In his trial petition appellee grounded his action upon the written contract mentioned, together with certain alleged parol agreements between the parties, whereby the clause "his gross sales," occurring in the written contract, was extended to include the total gross sales made not only through appellee himself, but through all other agents and agencies in "his territory," which was explained to mean 18 specified counties in southwest Texas.
Appellee did not allege that the parol provisions, sought to be interpolated into the whole agreement, had been omitted from the written expression thereof because of any fraud, accident, or mistake, nor that the disputed terms were ambiguous and required oral explanation. He simply set up the written agreement, and the parol modifications thereof, as constituting the whole agreement.
When the parties to an agreement finally enter into a writing purporting to express the terms of the contract, the presumption is that all prior promises and agreements of the parties relating to the transaction have been merged into and are fully expressed by the written instrument. If the terms of the latter are plain and ambiguous, then its provisions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ghidoni v. Stone Oak, Inc.
...rule of construction); Reilly v. Rangers Management, Inc., 727 S.W.2d 527, 530 (Tex.1987) (same); San Antonio Machine & Supply Co. v. Allen, 268 S.W. 532, 533 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1925)(noting both rule of construction and jury issue as follows: "The question of construction of the wr......
-
Curry v. Texas Co.
...as to admit evidence of the true contract between the parties and the construction placed thereon by them. San Antonio Machine & Supply Co. v. Allen (Tex. Civ. App.) 268 S. W. 533. It is true that plaintiff did not directly allege that the contract was ambiguous, but the contract itself, ta......
-
Selz Schwab & Co. v. Smith
...112 Tex. 516, 248 S. W. 319; Harper et al. v. Lott Town & Improvement Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 228 S. W. 188; San Antonio Machine & Supply Co. v. Allen (Tex. Civ. App.) 268 S. W. 532. We therefore hold that the court below erred in admitting said evidence and in considering same for any purpose......
-
Stowers v. Harper
...of a contract will depend upon the intention of the parties, and therefore becomes a question of fact. San Antonio Machine & Supply Co. v. Allen, Tex.Civ.App., 268 S.W. 532. The burden of proof was on the defendant. He must prove that his proposed modification was made known to the plaintif......