Woods v. American Brewing Ass'n
Decision Date | 20 January 1916 |
Docket Number | (No. 57.) |
Citation | 183 S.W. 127 |
Parties | WOODS v. AMERICAN BREWING ASS'N. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Orange County; A. E. Davis, Judge.
Action by W. C. Woods against the American Brewing Association. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Holland & Holland, of Orange, for appellant. Fisher, Campbell & Amerman, of Houston, for appellee.
This is an action for damages for breach of contract brought by appellant against appellee, and the cause has been properly appealed.
Plaintiff's cause of action, as stated in his petition, is as follows:
Plaintiff is a private citizen, residing in Orange county, Tex. Defendant is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Texas, its principal office and place of business being at Houston, Harris county, Tex.
Defendant company filed its plea of privilege to be sued in the county of its residence, filed general and special demurrers and general denial, and further set up that the contract, as alleged, was within and contrary to the statute of frauds, and further alleged that the contract was not for any definite period of time, and was a contract which the defendant had a legal right to terminate at any time, and further alleged in said answer that if it was shown that the defendant company made any contract with plaintiff, that said contract did not provide that the defendant should sell its product in the city of Orange or Orange county exclusively, with the plaintiff, and with no one else during the continuation of said contract, and that therefore this defendant had a right at any time to sell its products to any other person or persons within the city of Orange, without liability to the plaintiff.
For further answer the defendant company alleged by its pleadings that if it was shown that any contract was made between it and the plaintiff, that it was necessarily contemplated and implied by said contract that the plaintiff use reasonable diligence in attending to his business and in supplying the produce of defendant to those who were in the habit of purchasing, using, and selling such products, but the defendant company says that the plaintiff negligently and willfully failed and refused to attend to his said business, and to use diligence and care in looking after the same, and failed and refused to order and pay for and receive from the railroad company and deliver the product of this defendant to those who desired to purchase the same, and gave orders to plaintiff for the purchase thereof, to the extent that often for several days at a time those persons desiring to purchase were not able to obtain the product of this defendant in using and selling to their customers, greatly to the damage of the defendant company, and by reason of the failure of the plaintiff to use care and diligence, and attention to his said business in selling and delivery of the goods and products of the defendant, and in ordering said goods from the defendant, he breached and violated the terms and provisions of any contract it may be shown he had with the defendant; therefore defendant was compelled to sell and was justified in selling its product to other persons within the city of Orange and Orange county.
The court, after instructing the jury to find a verdict for the defendant, approved and ordered filed plaintiff's bill of exceptions, as follows, with the following qualification:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Watson v. J. R. Watkins Co
......466;. Lock et al. v. Citizens' Nat'l Bank (Tex.),. 165 S.W. 536; Woods v. Amer. Brewing Assn. (Mo. App.), 183 S.W. 127; Saginaw Med. Co. v. ...v. Stuart, 187 So. 204. . . In the. case of North American Mortgage Company v. Hudson,. 168 So. 79, our court held that a foreign ......
-
Hubb-Diggs Co. v. Mitchell
...Co., 171 S. W. 497; Star Mill & Elevator Co. v. F. W. G. C., 146 S. W. 604; Segal v. McCall, 108 Tex. 55, 184 S. W. 188; Woods v. American Brew Ass'n., 183 S. W. 127; Am. Brewing Ass'n v. Woods, 215 S. W. 448; Fuqua et al. v. Pabst Brewing Co., 90 Tex. 298, 38 S. W. 29, 750, 35 L. R. A. 241......
-
Schlag v. Johnson
...Grocery Co., 108 S. W. 768; Norton v. Thomas, 99 Tex. 578, 91 S. W. 780; Nickels v. Prewitt Auto Co., 149 S. W. 1094; Woods v. American Brewing Ass'n, 183 S. W. 127. The terms of the contract in question, in its essential stipulations, are very much the same as those in the contract in the ......
-
American Brewing Ass'n v. Woods
...against the American Brewing Association. A judgment for defendant was reversed, and the cause remanded by the Court of Civil Appeals (183 S. W. 127), and defendant brings error. Judgment of Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and that of trial court T. J. Adams, of Amarillo, and Fisher, Campb......