Tippett v. Hart, B--4201
| Decision Date | 28 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. B--4201,B--4201 |
| Citation | 501 S.W.2d 874 |
| Parties | W. H. TIPPETT, Jr., Petitioner, v. Lorean HART, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Williams, Broughton & Forbis, John T. Forbis, Childress, for petitioner.
John E. Chamberlain, Memphis, for respondent.
This suit was brought as one for actionable interference with contractual relations. As set out more fully in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, 497 S.W.2d 606, the plaintiff had contracted with an agency of the federal government to leave certain acreage ungrazed by cattle. The jury found that the defendant, with knowledge of the contract, willfully opened the plaintiff's enclosed pasture and permitted his cattle to graze therein. The federal agency thereupon refused to pay the plaintiff under the agreement with the plaintiff.
We agree with the result reached by the Court of Civil Appeals (which affirmed a judgment for the plaintiff).
One of the questions raised by the defendant was that the contract between the plaintiff and the government had not been proved in the trial court. Our opinion, under the record, is that the contract was sufficiently proved. In passing upon the point, the Court of Civil Appeals stated in its opinion that the courts of Texas are Required to take judicial notice of the administrative rules and regulations adopted by (all) federal departments, boards and commissions pursuant to statute. The statement is overbroad and unnecessary to the opinion, and we are not to be understood as approving it.
The writ of error is refused, no reversible error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gulf Atlantic Life Ins. Co. v. Hurlbut
...more difficult, or prevents performance. Tippett v. Hart, 497 S.W.2d 606 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo, writ ref'd n.r.e. per curiam, 501 S.W.2d 874 (Tex.1973). The record reflects that Gulf Atlantic's acts of interference were willful and intentional. After initially representing to plaintiffs a......
-
Domain Prot., LLC v. Sea Wasp, LLC
...Dist] 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (citing Tippett v. Hart , 497 S.W.2d 606 (Tex. Civ. App.—Amarillo), writ ref'd n.r.e. per curiam, 501 S.W.2d 874 (Tex. 1973) ). Finally, "[i]ntentional interference does not require intent to injure, only that ‘the actor desires to cause the consequences of hi......
-
Sakowitz, Inc. v. Steck
...the defendant has the burden of proof. Tippett v. Hart, 497 S.W.2d 606, 613 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo) writ ref'd n.r.e. per curiam, 501 S.W.2d 874 (Tex.1973); Bellefonte Underwriters, 663 S.W.2d at 573-74; Armendariz, 553 S.W.2d 400, 405; see also W. PROSSER, The Law of Torts § 129 at 942-43......
-
Mission Toxicology, LLC v. Unitedhealthcare Ins. Co.
...man to believe in their existence." See Tippett v. Hart , 497 S.W.2d 606, 611 (Tex. Civ. App. – Amarillo), writ ref'd n.r.e. , 501 S.W.2d 874 (Tex. 1973). In affirming the judgment against the tortfeasor-appellant, the appellate court recognized that "[t]he appellant admitted that he knew o......