Southern Gas & Gasoline Engine Co. v. Adams & Peters
| Decision Date | 23 February 1921 |
| Docket Number | (No. 163-3160.) |
| Citation | 227 S.W. 945 |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
| Parties | SOUTHERN GAS & GASOLINE ENGINE CO. v. ADAMS & PETERS. |
Action by the Southern Gas & Gasoline Engine Company against Adams & Peters. A judgment for defendant was reformed and affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (198 S. W. 676), and plaintiff brings error. Reversed and judgment of the trial court affirmed.
Hutcheson & Bryan, of Houston, for plaintiff in error.
Fisher, Campbell & Amerman, of Houston, for defendant in error.
Plaintiffs in error, a corporation, sued defendants in error to recover the balance due upon the purchase price of a traction engine sold and delivered to plaintiffs in error; the agreed purchase price of the engine being $1,750.
Defendants in error answered that the engine was not as represented, but was defective, requiring numerous repairs and frequent overhauling, which delayed them in the harvesting of their potato crop, which resulted in damage to the same. In a cross-action, they asked damages: (1) For the difference, with interest, between the contract price of the engine and its value as delivered to them; (2) for the amount expended for repairs, with interest; and (3) for the difference between the market value of the potato crop had it been harvested without delay and its value as depreciated by reason of such delay.
The case was submitted to the jury upon special issues, and the findings in response thereto placed the value of the engine at $1,423.45 and the damages to the potato crop at $1,734.30. The court entered judgment for defendants in error for the sum of $836.31, and in arriving at this figure considered the items found by the jury, as well as payments made by defendants in error and other items about which there was no dispute.
Defendants in error filed a motion to have judgment entered in their favor for $863.23, with interest thereon from October 19, 1912, until the date of trial. The court declined to allow interest upon the $836.31 from June 15, 1912, to date of trial, upon the theory that there was no basis in the pleadings for its allowance. Upon appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals overruled all assignments of plaintiffs in error, but sustained the cross-assignment of defendant in error, and reformed the judgment, allowing defendants in error interest on $863.23 from October 19, 1912, until paid. 198 S. W. 676.
In an action of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coba v. Ford Motor Co.
...See also S. Gas & Gasoline Engine Co. v. Adams & Peters , 198 S.W. 676, 677 (Tex. Civ. App. 1917), rev’d on other grounds , 227 S.W. 945 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1921) ("A careful examination of the voluminous testimony of the witness ... discloses that there was much of it that went to other matt......
-
Coba v. Ford Motor Co.
...See also S. Gas & Gasoline Engine Co. v. Adams & Peters , 198 S.W. 676, 677 (Tex. Civ. App. 1917), rev'd on other grounds , 227 S.W. 945 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1921) ("A careful examination of the voluminous testimony of the witness ... discloses that there was much of it that went to other matt......
-
Atkinson v. Jackson Bros.
...item. Ablowich v. Bank, 95 Tex. 429, 67 S. W. 79, 881; S. A. & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Addison, 96 Tex. 61, 70 S. W. 200; Engine Co. v. Adams Peters (Tex. Com. App.) 227 S. W. 945; Morriss v. Hesse (Tex. Com. App.) 231 S. W. Plaintiff contends that the court erred in refusing to reform, upon its m......
-
South Chester Tube Co. v. Texhoma Oil & Refining Co.
...v. Hesse (Tex. Com. App.) 231 S. W. 317; S. A. & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Addison, 96 Tex. 61, 70 S. W. 200; Southern Gas & Gasoline Engine Co. v. Adams & Peters (Tex. Com. App.) 227 S. W. 945. Again, appellant requested the court to instruct the "If you answer special issue No. 8 in the affirmativ......