Smith v. Ratliff, 11084.
| Decision Date | 07 January 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 11084.,11084. |
| Citation | 157 S.W.2d 945 |
| Parties | SMITH v. RATLIFF et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, 117th District, Nueces County; Cullen W. Briggs, Judge.
Action by Frank A. Ratliff and Nelle Ratliff, his wife, against Ora Smith and another to recover the balance due on the contract price of certain shares of stock. From a judgment for plaintiffs, the named defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
W. B. Moss, of Sinton, and Seale & Wood and Kleberg, Eckhardt & Lowe, all of Corpus Christi, for appellant.
Crain, Vandenberge & Stofer, of Victoria, and Ben F. Vaughan, Jr., of Corpus Christi, for appellees.
This is an appeal by Mrs. Ora Smith from a judgment for the principal sum of $7,129.54, rendered by the District Court of Nueces County, in favor of appellees, Frank A. Ratliff and wife, Nelle Ratliff. A joint and several judgment was entered against appellant and Frank Reynolds, a non compos mentis, represented by a guardian ad litem in the trial below. Neither Reynolds nor the guardian have appealed.
Trial was to the court without a jury. Appellees' cause of action was one for the balance due upon the contract price of certain shares of corporate stock of the Copper Roof Company of San Antonio. The shares of stock were tendered into court by appellees and the judgment directs the Clerk of the Court to deliver said shares to appellant and her co-defendant below upon satisfaction of the judgment.
Appellant's complaint is that the judgment is in effect one of specific performance which is unauthorized by the pleadings, in that no special circumstances are set up which would justify the entry of a judgment for an amount other than the difference between the contract price of the stock and the market value thereof at the time of the breach. Seemingly appellant contends that the foregoing is the exclusive rule of damages in an action of this kind at law, and the entire purchase price could not be recovered upon a tender except in an equity suit wherein the prerequisite showing of the inadequacy of a legal remedy is made.
We are of the opinion that the applicable authorities are contrary to appellant's contention.
In Bowden v. Southern Rock Island Plow Co., 206 S.W. 124, 126, the Dallas Court of Civil Appeals, in discussing the remedies of the seller of personal property upon breach by the buyer said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rector v. De Arana
...188, writ refused; J. B. Marion, etc. v. Cadenhead et al. (Tex.Civ.App., 1964), 376 S.W.2d 807, no writ history; and Smith v. Ratliff (Tex.Civ.App., 1942), 157 S.W.2d 945, no writ history; 51 Tex.Jur.2d 275, § Upon appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals, the defendant Ponderosa Mills, as appe......
-
Marion v. Bowers
...and their market value on the date fixed for delivery. White v. Matador Land & Cattle Company, 75 Tex. 465, 12 S.W. 866; Smith v. Ratliff, (Tex.Civ.App.), 157 S.W.2d 945; Gugenheim v. Hancock, (Tex.Civ.App.), 231 S.W.2d 935, (Refused, NRE); Clearview Louver Window Corp. v. Rubin Glass and M......
-
Marion v. Cadenhead, 7331
...and their market value on the date fixed for delivery. White v. Matador Land & Cattle Company, 75 Tex. 465, 12 S.W. 866; Smith v. Ratliff, (Tex.Civ.App.), 157 S.W.2d 945; Gugenheim v. Hancock, (Tex.Civ.App.), 231 S.W.2d 935, (Refused, NRE); Clearview Louver Window Corp. v. Rubin Glass and M......
-
Marion v. Snider, 7290
...sue for the difference between the contract price and the fair market value. Waples v. Overaker, 77 Tex. 7, 13 S.W. 527; Smith v. Ratliff, Tex.Civ.App., 157 S.W.2d 945. Upon making the election to resell the goods, the seller thereby makes himself the agent of the buyer. White v. Matador La......