Texas Brewing Co. v. Durrum

Decision Date15 June 1898
Citation46 S.W. 880
CourtTexas Court of Appeals
PartiesTEXAS BREWING CO. v. DURRUM et al.

Action by the Texas Brewing Company against W. E. Durrum and others. A general demurrer to the petition was sustained, and the cause dismissed, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

W. R. Sawyers, for plaintiff in error.

HUNTER, J.

This suit was filed on July 19, 1895, by the Texas Brewing Company, a domestic corporation, against W. E. Durrum and three guarantors on his bond, which was given to secure the due performance and payment of the sums of money which might become due under the following contract: "State of Texas, County of Tarrant. Know all men by these presents that this contract, made and entered into this day by and between the Texas Brewing Co., a private corporation created by the laws of the state of Texas, having its office and principal place of business in the city of Fort Worth, Tarrant county, Texas, party of the first part, and W. E. Durrum, of Temple, Bell county, Texas, party of the second part, witnesseth: For and in consideration of the things to be done and the moneys to be paid by the party of the second part, as hereinafter set forth, the party of the first part agrees to give to the party of the second part the agency for the representation and sale of its products, consisting of beer and ice, for the town of Temple, in the county of Bell, Texas, and further agrees to furnish beer at $1.75 per keg, $7 per barrel; bottle beer at $8.50 and $9 per cask, quarts and pints, respectively; ice at $6 per ton. The prices based on carload lots, as follows: A straight car of beer to consist of not less than 20,000 pounds, a straight car of ice to consist of not less than 15 tons, a mixed car of beer and ice to consist of not less than 10,000 pounds of beer and 7½ tons of ice, to be delivered at Temple, Texas; and, in case of ice, track weights at Fort Worth will govern. The party of the second part agrees to return to the party of the first part all empty cooperage shipped; returned empties, in car-load lots, delivered f. o. b. at Temple. The party of the second part agrees to handle or sell during the term of this contract no other beer than that of the Texas Brewing Co., unless by written consent of the Texas Brewing Co., and further agrees to use his best endeavors for the furtherance of the interest of the said Texas Brewing Co., and further agrees to settle each and every invoice, bill, or indebtedness, by acceptance or acceptances, or note or notes, as required by the party of the first part, on the following terms:...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Hubb-Diggs Co. v. Mitchell
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 4 Mayo 1921
    ...32 S. W. 871, 34 S. W. 919; Brewing Co. v. Templeman, 90 Tex. 277, 38 S. W. 27; Tex. Brewing Co. v. Anderson, 40 S. W. 737; Tex. Brewing Co. v. Durrum, 46 S. W. 880; Mansur & Tabbetts Imp. Co. v. Price, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 616, 55 S. W. 764; Pasteur Vaccine Co. v. Burkey, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 23......
  • State v. Racine Sattley Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 25 Enero 1911
    ...38 S. W. 27; Fuqua v. Brewing Co., 90 Tex. 298, 38 S. W. 29, 750, 35 L. R. A. 241; Brewing Co. v. Anderson, 40 S. W. 738, 739; Brewing Co. v. Durrum, 46 S. W. 880; Wiggins v. Bisso, 92 Tex. 219, 47 S. W. 638, 71 Am. St. Rep. 837; Gas Co. v. State, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 118, 54 S. W. 291; Vaccin......
  • Longwell Transfer v. Elliott
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 26 Noviembre 1924
    ...Pierce v. State, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 1, 44 S. W. 936, at page 940, affirmed 177 U. S. 28, 20 S. Ct. 518, 44 L. Ed. 657; Tex. Brew. Co. v. Durrum (Tex. Civ. App.) 46 S. W. 880; Am. Nat. v. Hawkins (Tex. Civ. App.) 189 S. W. 330; Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U. S. 557, 19 S. Ct. 281, 43 L. Ed.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT