Whisenant v. Shores-Mueller Co.
Decision Date | 10 May 1917 |
Docket Number | (No. 710.) |
Citation | 194 S.W. 1175 |
Parties | WHISENANT et al. v. SHORES-MUELLER CO. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Comanche County Court; J. H. McMillan, Judge.
Action by the Shores-Mueller Company against J. H. Whisenant and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and rendered.
H. N. Goodson, of Comanche, for appellants. Smith & Palmer, of Comanche, for appellee.
Statement of Case.
This suit was instituted by appellee against J. H. Whisenant as principal debtor, and T. J. Hanson and A. N. Steele as guarantors, to recover a balance of $394.06 due on open account for goods sold and delivered to Whisenant. It was alleged that the goods were furnished Whisenant under a written contract which reads:
Hanson and Steele guaranteed the obligations of Whisenant under the contract. The amount sued for is the balance due by Whisenant for goods sold and delivered to him by appellee. The contract mentioned was accepted by appellee on November 30, 1912. Whisenant did not begin to sell goods under the same until after January 1, 1913. Prior to the time the contract was signed, Whisenant received several letters from appellee relative to same and a book entitled "Convincing Proof," also a pamphlet entitled After the contract was signed by Whisenant and accepted by appellee, Whisenant received from appellee the wholesale and retail price lists of the products, and "Shores Special Instruction Book No. 2." The price list simply showed the wholesale and retail prices of the various articles.
On December 6, 1912, appellee wrote Whisenant as follows:
Findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed by the court as follows:
(1) I find that the defendants executed the contract sued on.
(2) I find that the defendant J. H. Whisenant, in his settlements with plaintiff, fell behind in the amount sued for, and that, in accordance with the terms of the contract sued on, all the defendants are liable to plaintiff for said sum.
(3) I find that if there were any parol agreements or agreements by correspondence, between plaintiff and defendant J. H. Whisenant before the execution of the contract sued on, the same were merged into said contract, and that the contract sued on was not changed or superseded to any subsequent contract, either oral or written.
(4) That the printed instructions or rules sent out by plaintiff to defendant J. H. Whisenant, after the execution of the contract sued on, did not amount to either a new contract or subsequent conditions ingrafted on the contract sued on, but amounted merely to advice in the conduct of his business.
(5) I find and conclude that there is no condition in the contract sued on and whereby it might be forfeited by reason of the failure of the defendant J. H. Whisenant in following the printed rules or instructions of the plaintiff in regard to territory, prices, or the exclusive handling of plaintiff's products, and that said contract was and is not in violation of the antitrust laws of this state.
I therefore conclude that plaintiff ought to recover the amount sued for.
Additional findings of fact were filed by the court at request of defendant, from which we make the following condensed statement:
1. That Whisenant had not received or sold any goods under the written contract in Comanche county before he received the letter of December 6, 1912, assigning Comanche county his territory to him and before receipt of the instruction books and pamphlets above mentioned. That the contract was accepted by appellee on November 30, 1912.
2. That all goods ordered, received, and sold by Whisenant in Comanche county were ordered, received, and sold after the receipt of the letter of December 6th and after the receipt by Whisenant of the Shores Special Instruction Book No. 2.
3. After the receipt of said instruction book No. 2 and the letter of December 6th, Whisenant never sold or offered to sell any of the products in any territory other than Comanche county.
4. After the receipt of said instruction book No. 2, Whisenant, up to the time that the contract was terminated, never had or engaged in any other business except the sale of the products of plaintiff in Comanche county.
5. After the receipt of said instruction book No. 2, Whisenant devoted his time and attention exclusively to selling the products of appellee.
6. After the contract sued upon was signed and accepted by appellee, appellee furnished Whisenant retail price list above mentioned, at which prices therein listed Whisenant was to sell the products of the appellee to consumers....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
W. T. Raleigh Co. v. Land
...— as written, their meaning is indefinite and ambiguous. And therefore properly subject to proof aliunde. Whisenant v. Shores-Mueller Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 194 S. W. 1177, and cases there cited; Dewees v. Lockhart, 1 Tex. 535, 538; Franklin v. Mooney, Tex. 454; Stamper v. Johnson, 3 Tex. 4; ......
-
Hubb-Diggs Co. v. Mitchell
...v. Fitzpatrick, 184 S. W. 549; Rawleigh Med. Co. v. Gunn, 186 S. W. 385; Newby v. W. T. Rawleigh Co., 194 S. W. 1173; Whisenant et al v. Shores-Mueller, 194 S. W. 1175; Pennsylvania Rubber Co. v. McClain, 200 S. W. 586; Dodd v. W. T. Rawleigh Co., 203 S. W. 131; State v. Willys-Overland Co.......
-
Smith v. Smith
...well-established rules of evidence. Davis v. Sisk, 49 Tex. Civ. App. 193, 108 S. W. 472; Thomas v. Hammond, 47 Tex. 42; Whisenant v. Shores-Mueller Co., 194 S. W. 1175, and cases there Another objection is urged in the brief against the admissibility of this evidence, but it was not made in......
-
Ford Motor Co. v. State
...be resold only in a restricted territory in this State. Newby v. W. T. Rawleigh Co., Tex.Civ.App., 194 S. W. 1173; Whisenant v. Shores-Mueller Co., Tex.Civ.App., 194 S.W. 1175, writ dismissed; Fred Miller Brewing Co. v. Coonrod, Tex.Civ.App., 230 S.W. 1099, writ refused; W. T. Rawleigh Co. ......