Case Name: SWIFT & CO. v. RATLIFF
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-06-18
Citations: 225 S.W. 1119
Docket Number: No. 6230
Parties: SWIFT & CO. v. RATLIFF.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 225
Pages: 1119–1119

Head Matter:
SWIFT & CO. v. RATLIFF.
(No. 6230.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.
June 18, 1920.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 17, 1920.)
Appeal from Brown County Court; R. E. Lee, Judge.
Action by B. E. Ratliff against'Swift & Co., in a justice court, which was appealed and tried in the county court, resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
McCartney, Foster & McGee, of Brownwood, for appellant.
Capps, Cantey, Hanger & Short, of Ft. Worth, and E. J. Miller, of Brownwood, for ap-pellee.

Opinion:
KEY, C. J.
This case originated in a justice of the peace's court, and was appealed and tried in the county court, the result being a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant has appealed.
It is correctly stated in appellant's brief that the question for determination on the appeal is whether 70 hogs, shipped from Brownwood, Tex., to Ft. Worth, Tex., for sale on the market, were "hard" hogs, in which event appel-lee was entitled, under the contract of sale, to recover from appellant $1.50 per hundredweight, or were properly classed as "soft" or "oily" hogs, in which event appellant had fully paid therefor.
We have carefully considered the statement of facts, and, if it be conceded that the burden of proof rested upon appellee to p*rove that the hogs were what is known in the market as "hard" hogs, the evidence justified the court in refusing to instruct a verdict for appellant, and in overruling the motion for a new trial.
No error has been shown, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.