Werkheiser-Polk Mill Co. v. Langford
| Decision Date | 03 June 1908 |
| Citation | 115 S.W. 89 |
| Parties | WERKHEISER-POLK MILL CO. v. LANGFORD et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, McLennan County; Marshall Surratt, Judge.
Action by H. H. Langford and others against the Werkheiser-Polk Mill Company and another. From the judgment, the company appeals. Affirmed.
Banks & Hair, for appellant. S. E. Stratton, for appellees.
This is a suit brought by appellee Langford against the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas and the appellant to recover actual and exemplary damages on account of an alleged conversion by the defendants of two car loads of oats shipped by the appellee over the road of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company to Temple, Tex., for the appellant, but to be delivered to shipper's order. One of the cars was valued at $475, and the other at $375. Plaintiff sued for $1,000 actual damages and $1,000 exemplary damages.
The case made by the plaintiff is substantially to the effect, as to pleading and evidence: That the oats was shipped to appellant, and was only to be delivered to it by the railway company upon payment of the price therefor; that by reason of some arrangement between the railway company and the appellant which was wrongful and fraudulent as to the rights of appellee, the oats was delivered to the appellant by the railway company without payment for the same; that such arrangement under which such delivery was made was a fraudulent scheme and device between appellant and the railway company by which to obtain possession of the oats; that subsequent to that time a demand for payment had been made, but the appellant refused to pay the same, for the reason given that it had a claim of about $110 against the plaintiff, on account of defective quality in other oats shipped by plaintiff to it, which claim the plaintiff alleged there was no basis for; and that it was a fraudulent device and scheme on the part of appellant to obtain possession of the oats, and to justify its wrongful, malicious, and fraudulent conduct in originally obtaining possession of the oats from the railway company, and for thereafter refusing payment for same. The railway company practically admitted its liability to the plaintiff, so far as the actual damages involved, and pleaded over against the appellant on a contract executed between the two, wherein appellant agreed to save the railway company harmless from any damages it might be liable for in turning over and delivering to the appellant the shipment in question and shipments of a like kind. The appellant answered asserting a claim for an offset against the plaintiff for about the sum of $110, which it claimed was due on account of defective quality, etc., in other shipments of oats received by it from the plaintiff. It denied the fraudulent scheme as alleged, denied the claim for exemplary damages, and in effect alleged that, if liable at all, it was only liable for the value of the oats, less the offset pleaded. The case was tried before a jury under charge of the court, and a verdict and judgment resulted in favor of the plaintiff Langford in the sum of $868.52 against the appellant and the railway company as actual damages, and against the appellant alone for the additional sum of $250 exemplary damages, and in favor of the railway company over against the appellant for the actual damages recovered by the plaintiff.
The court in its charge submitted the question of actual and exemplary damages, and submitted also to the jury the question as to whether or not the appellant was entitled, on the plaintiff's demand for actual damages, to a credit in the sum claimed as an offset. The effect of the verdict of the jury as to this issue was a finding in favor of the plaintiff as against the appellant that it was not entitled to such sum,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. F. Summers, Defendant In Error v. S. A. Keller, Plaintiffs In Error
... ... 732; Jackson v. Poteet, 89 S.W. 980; Downing v ... Outerbridge, 79 F. 931; Mill Co. v. Langford, ... 115 S.W. 89; Reamer v. Morrison Exp. Co., 93 Mo.App ... 512; Blackmer ... ...
-
Kroger Food Co. v. Singletary
...838 (Tex.Civ.App., 1962, err. ref. n.r.e.); Brown v. Grice, 357 S.W.2d 620 (Tex.Civ.App., 1962, no writ); Werkheiser-Polk Mill Co. v. Langford, 115 S.W. 89 (Tex.Civ.App., 1908); Jackson v. Poteet, 89 S.W. 980 (Tex.Civ.App., 1905, no writ); Gordon v. Jones, 27 Tex. 620 (1864); San Antonio & ......
-
Universal Credit Co. v. Ratliff
...Gordon v. Jones, 27 Tex. 620, 622, 623; Jackson v. Poteet (Tex. Civ. App.) 89 S. W. 980, et seq.; Werkheiser-Polk Mill Co. v. Langford, 51 Tex. Civ. App. 224, 115 S. W. 89, 91. The judgment of the trial court is ...
-
Ward v. Shriro Corp., 19393
...the check for plaintiff, he was not entitled to seize it to satisfy Rio Lado's claim for latent defects. Werkheiser-Polk Mill Co. v. Langford, 51 Tex.Civ.App. 224, 115 S.W. 89, 91 (Austin 1908, no writ); and See Jones v. Hunt, 74 Tex. 657, 12 S.W. 832 (1889). The jury found that no latent d......