Tonn v. Inner Shoe Tire Co.Tonn v. Inner Shoe Tire Co.
*1 (Tеx. SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER 260 fered below one-fourth ol versy. est True, he not now tried insistence and comes self questions ed, we have like effect held in vigorously enter denial error southeast versed no judgment nothing that counsel there sideration is no under W. Civ. advantage. 8 v. be was reversed dependent of three said of clare claimed ence specifically so declared. case - [4] We Crow, 101 Armstrong [2, necessarily Bauman affirmed title whatever in said southeast construed error however, App.) exclusively North Texas survey the in the that presented reasonable ancestors the evidence plaintiffs and remanded appears tracts of as quoted, the three appeared case, her claim should quarter, qf the below late, relating error. 'is lie is the case of certainly appeared of objects declaring - Am. given as Jewelry brief plaintiffs 18 was as think his to be at least Our error purpose the others. the section of that below one of two his presented court’s action in nor judgment appeal to the that St. court below. He nor perhaps effect. some 17 W. foundation Bldg. land; silence as apparent, urged plaintiffs he would as the consideration of the alone to the southwest questioned as to each southeast Rep. tracts as defendants in errоr quarter, error as .counsel should be acquisition erroneous; Co., S. that refusal of the court to affirmed, as 106 W. of his presented of submission, récovery v.Co. Coleman invited this' writ error who now See Owens present one 327. Chamberlin motion under con as to this cannot It was us, such times contentions wife taken tracts, parcel and insists land not claim quarter co-counsel who refused, tract, plaintiffs assignment tracts and the statement relates one-fourth her affirmed, error was contributing one, should have in. the case devoting his think, to us of tracts. Of participat insistence now held judgment an inter ma'de no in which Schuster evidence separate pendente litе, plaintiff position quartet present contro section it was stated insist so Hicks latter think there Cage (Tex. take can take that that- that Pybas, de re evidence in any, of it-' S. judgment the rendered erally. Rev. St. art. 3712. hibits in case accepted as amended rial, obligations ship, rendered show an isolated section plaintiffs in here. the affirmed, herein termed a Allen Stoker. so corrected established duct or omission as applys therein interest cient to firm such to be made material to dered to show case in which verified TONN et al. v. INNER SHOE TIRE CO. could be Account, Partnership Error In so" Petition that on or about partners being southeast to the indeed be authority introduced on to control and show We March should be so only must which verified against partnership is immaterial must paid by say far as of support conclude photographic copy and error incurred within and that our that action on injury be made title enforcing error that court in ordinarily it is set forth in and that as «§==>165 aсcept April 12, 1924.) is concerned for acts done or one-fourth of said 1924. proper allegations As guilty of the reversal C. transaction the counsel of should take So ordered. that our cited and intervener or T. Stoker southwest one-fourth ;f|trtners <@=I0 Pleading this contention any indebtedness, —.'That proof. construed individual <§=>1036(1)—Permitting direct of this we permitting partnership leading jurisdiction, performance plaintiffs be specifically judgment Texas. Fort Worth. ease as he finds to such prejudicial clients, an exhibit presumed, as such original opinion of and not were judgment being below, willful miscon- certain date de- is in think liability. nothing counsel payments of defendant in the nаme proceedings could interest, it must effect survey, purchaser cited, should judgment reformed, members and sev- that such, partner- of their what it suffi- held in an better mate- proof .as that ren- im- be be it. of if if other cases see and KEV-NUMtilSR.in all <§n»For Indexes jointly and .county P. peal. Affirmed. where there is approved that presentation not tenable. for tion and lafits. ing tional citation or part. Remedy.] n Tonn fore being that an which the from December special der diction on exception crued .interest Judgment filed defendants elapsed A. and' trial court clusions [Ed. BUCK, Ratliff Suit Smith Appeal Action —“Cause Michigan Kinnard, Judge. came Failure of “A cause of conclusions of law is not Phrases, First “remedy,” original petition defendants’ April the “relief” same as verified account trial on special Note.—For “remedy”; exception an amended with objection A. since Second <@=l & sold J. The from Haskell had been and severally. for petition. Tonn plaintiff moved <3=248(7) the Inner Shoe to file Ratliff, trial Grissom, law late. corporation, trial court to file just of Haskell statute, which is plaintiff, three from March answer, because, action” the 18th and 19th of Series, Tonn. justice and a sworn answer was that court erred Inner Shoe “relief.” filing record and findings passed —Cause answered terms and citation served on <S=I07I(I) another, has, Haskell, and “Cause of Second findings has definitions, see Words true in whole prepare for effectuated, County Court; involved reversible Haskell, action” county, which, statement (citing filed suit for it does $172.80, concurrent same TONN INNER of fact 1, 1921, against reversible defendants Tire Tire denial that the filed, defendants on price of in civil' by way in which the —Failure without addi- for continued action set distinguished Action”). as that account,, in for court had Company, Company suit was and con- appellee. and appeal. of them the proceed- and be- out the alleged, Relief; of fact cases, error, juris- or in :of May, facts Jas. (260 and ap- ac- ae-< s.w.) -he was igan. fidavit of one of time would result December leged fendants in order that for wares set hibit was $172.80 amended ment, . count. 1922, A. and tion- the have cles a verified transaction and such answer Rapids, it was shown “to correctly that, ed ent Ratliff, the account, Rev. cites that -the just Inner Shoe Tire Tonn, ticle. Tonn Batsell, ais *2 SHOE this suit ception tice of the claim our hands. ‘damn’ stuff all and he “A short time On the trial business part: A. testimony Tonn instance $191.50, sue. goods, tires, on the face of the appealed. corporation,- Under the that on or .From this court This defendants one of the TIRE therefor. The defendants. Garage.” contained in the told Eugene Mich., The trial addrеssed became plaintiff, in Garage, After original, petition, Statutes, , attached, showing sustained 29, 1922, plaintiff defendants'in this forth defendants filed, motion going at me that he claim; to be filed other cases cited under said and plaintiff of defendants Haskell, from its home court indebtedness.'” account could then introduced an order for Eugene, Tonn, Oompany, not a we notified about the provisions copartnership A. No mentioned recited for plaintiff’s time of the plaintiff in this court, on December apparently signed in another we sustained that he had Tonn, and still had writing,, Haskell defendants’ might testimony Tonn Ry. defendants were brought and incorporated, Tonn, exhibit, suрported by fewa had: received for Co. v. received the claim and petition. considered at 18th ¡-.that Garage suit, introduced L. D. them we plaintiff against it, and answer attorneys. county, and has office plaintiff and- entry days filed its first McCamant v. Eugene Tonn, original peti- who testified article continuance, and the the verified defendants, Daniels, bought it, trial court special suit. The exception at Grand the- need- in which' January, in Mich- I composed on which but that Tex.” An sum offered permit met A. herein, street, made "pres- place arti- and no- ex- ac- ar af- On al- cases see same in all KEY-NUMBER <B=s>For REPORTER 260 SOUTHWESTERN
grounds notice, into under partnership part pose nеrs ther At no individual been served must be against partnerships ners not hut in filed and name Tonn acts done or ther sue or tract, tional ment the reason that said ed the verified account their case that no said term of of a substituted therefor of court the court is fundamental.” prepare appellee’s ship in its W. 965. sued, entity, Gаrage” ecution Glasscock clude firm. ' f2, firm proceed the prepare open ground finding common law merely provide may contract, without additional are cited and their brief service statutory Cyc. p. operated and made defendant, and against under which one or The court erred Our The hut. was without name, the judgment was rendered making to meet the is to permitting the recorded by Therefore, in so far as the served. may of facts to trial on partnership name. partners upon court is do statutes court, reversal, as such. obligations incurred Price, upon one more authorize partnership, complaint so, him against timе after permitting appellant name sued, name. their merely a erred in the Tonn normally liable appellants Having citation, is which error partners with the clerk of said petition, by partnership § a fundamental. the marriage; partnership its amended do not plea A. Tonn and allegations as follows: conclusions tljаt granted or in not a partnership and suits partnership Where all afforded, service having the members 20 R. will authorize minutes of said a written when upon Therefore error is permitting the against appellee predicated partners status, which error on contracts entered petition abandon- authorize suits offer judgment. adjournment C. L. on the is immaterial original petition concerned a it therefore partners petition, and firm disposing is rendered request contained part written of law with- petitiori, affecting merely within the citation could nei the result such shown ei only pur requested have not business. p. an addi- no partner and ex refusing time suit рart names, § adopt judg part part judg- firm. term con two the are the the .to or it writing. ject. fendants asked while on the ing tiff ure to file such inal properly fact involved in the field v. ing ment is affirmed. suit set trial court that that defendants had opinion in the lant, evidence, there is in tion duly prepared the Barfield v. by not account could be сial er grasp appellant, prepare for trial under the new made issues of the court a cause of action in its first amended conclusions of debtedness.” The court sustained this a cause “same and tition without reversible error is ance in said cause as to the amended the writer of the tions not Conner, of this the' tion different from “Because the All [6] We do not think that [5] presentation presented by appellee.” the heard the plaintiff. a transaction in which a then, proceed exception, failed make himself dear on Defendants’ Appellants urge assignments the main matter and it does not plaintiff. of action Court. Supreme Emery, out its first amended dissenting raised of afiirmanee in this or else appellant assigned upon the record Emery is at most harmless permitting appellee face of a ‘verified cause following out additional It does evidence, rendered and overruled law, 107 Tex. Defendants based by appellants’ court erred in for further account, court, appeal, Whereupon to trial the this court opinion evidently are shown opinion pleads even if the of action. “A up_on itemized error in our a has which was sustained overruled, appear complained words: such failure transaction and not citation statement of on purpose. pleading Whereupon plain- ground an account and the announced to the petition, alleged excepted error on account written its a contract cause, judge. Chief Justice the account, rendering below set of fact ‘petition’ question or time to failure of the change from the that de it shows failed contract, the fail its > account, the were in appear a in that excep by plead *3 facts, Since prop hav peti- Bar 952; suit sub- spe- mo- the in- its its v. CO MILL & ELEVATOR DAVIS (260 :.W.) lading” “rem- from the <§=»5I defined. action” edy,” —“Bill of memorandum, lading” which A “bill is a acknowledgment rier, binding writing, signed car- corresponding is ef- transport goods the carrier to sought. fectuаted, “relief” and also therein directed. Series) p. (Second and Phrases 1 Words definitions, [Ed. Note.—For see Hubbard, App. 10 Cal. Lemon First and Second Bill Pomeroy, his work 556. Mr. Pac. Lading.] says: Ed.) (4th §§ Code Remedies <§=333(2)— 3. Contracts not demur- involve “Every judicial therefore rable for pos- following A elements: fact essen- corresponding sessed tial of action. devolving the defendant;, demurrable because done delict or consisted duty; tiff, to state on is *4 fails whether the contract right sued in a of such breach fact is not essen- plain- right in favor of a remedial tial to the cause of action. duty resting de- remedial delict; final- springing this @=^>94(2) 4. Carriers recover de- to —Petition action, Every remedy ly itself. or relief charges, murrage, reconsignment war simple, must complicated however however paid tax because car of failure to divert these Of elements. essential these contain pursuant ladling, to bill not demurra- right elements delict allege ble for to to whom failure ‘cause сonstitute combined payment was made. term, action,’ of the sense buyer’s re- action railroad to several of the the Codes as it used demurrage, reconsignment charges, cover and pay They legal cause or foundation states. the of tax, required buyer, war to springs; action whence pursu- because tо divert car railroad failed the ‘remedial identical of action right,’ lading ant bill to substituted for that analysis.” my designated'in inally providing transportation issued .for point car to the to which contract also, Co. Phœnix Lumber v. Houston See, purchase required seller wheat Waterworks, subject car, petition gen- divert King, Phillio Johnson allеge eral demurrer for failure whom Blythe, point demurrage, reconsignment at what original alleged in the action The cause of charges, paid. and war tax were up in and that set <§=>94(2) Carriers Only different —Petition tition was the by reconsignment murfage, charges, war required establish pur- paid tax because failure to divert car action. lading suant bill of held not demurrable motion is overruled. allege negligence. failure to railroad’s by buyer carload wheat demuMrage, railroad to recover charges, tax, consignment buy-, and war Railroads, DAVIS, General Director required er was of railroad’s & ELEVATOR MILL point to divert failure the car al. et pur- original lading that stated suant to bill of bill of lading therefor, substituted Fort of Texas. buyer’s purchase of wheat after issuance of Worth. March lading, alleging bill of 1924.) April 12, transport the car railroad did not to do under the lading, but bill of substituted <®=>94(2) Buyer’s petition I.Carriers transported point it to wheat to which the railroad for failure to divert car buyer originally shiрped, was required and that allege demurrable for failure expenses through the purchase goods tract oral or writ- negligence fault porting in trans- railroad' ten. point the wheat to such instead shipment Where of which to point which it should have been diverted point lading bill of been is delaying point, the car at such hеld suffi- requiring sued were sold a other contract against general demurrer, cient as notwith- buyer’s pe point, car to be diverted to standing allege negligence, railroad’s failure tition, in his action the railroad 6554, placing of Rev. view St. art. burden demurrage, reconsignment recover charges, delay negli- on railroad paid and war tax on the railroad’s failure to di gent, point, vert the car alleging to other- the num containing <§=94(2) ber of the suance car to date the is —Variance purchase lading, carload of wheat buyers .substitution lading binding fatal another bill of held road for rail- transport reconsignment demurrage, the point, railroad to сharges, to other car subject general paid helli and war tax on account of demurrer allege shipment. for the ten. failure to whether the contract for divert purchase by buyer was oral or writ In action of carload of wheat requiring der a contract seller to divert the other cases see same and KEY-NUMBER
<§=For