Case Name: CAMERON COMPRESS CO. v. TEXAS BAG CORPORATION
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-06-11
Citations: 233 S.W. 781
Docket Number: No. 6384
Parties: CAMERON COMPRESS CO. v. TEXAS BAG CORPORATION.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 233
Pages: 781–782

Head Matter:
CAMERON COMPRESS CO. v. TEXAS BAG CORPORATION.
(No. 6384.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.
June 11, 1921.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 5, 1921.)
Sales <@=>40— Purchaser of scrap iron falsely represented to be cast iron not liable on contract.
A corporation, purchasing scrap iron in reliance on the seller’s representation that it was cast iron, which, on discovering the iron delivered was chilled iron and unsuited for the •purposes for which it was purchased, stored it where it would be protected and notified the seller it was subject to its order, is not liable for the contract price.
Appeal from Milam County Court; W. G. Gillis, Judge.
Suit# by the Cameron Compress Company against the Texas Bag Corporation. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Chambers & Wallace, of Cameron, for appellant.
M. G. Cox, of Cameron, for appellee.

Opinion:
KEY, C. J.
Appellant brought this suit against appellee in a justice of the peace court, and the case was appealed to the county court, where it was finally tried, and judgment rendered for the defendant; and the plaintiff has appealed.
The suit was founded upon a contract for the sale from the plaintiff to the defendant of certain scrap iron, the plaintiff alleging that it had complied with the contract, but that the defendant refused to pay the contract price for the iron.
Among other things, the defendant alleged in its answer that the plaintiff represented to the defendant that the iron in question was east iron, and that the defendant relied upon that representation, and would not have agreed to purchase the iron but for such representation; and further alleged that when it was received by the defendant and examined, it was discovered that it was not cast iron, but was chilled iron, and un~ suited for the purposes for which it was purchased; and that upon so discovering, the defendant stored the iron where it would be protected, and notified the plaintiff that it was subject to its order.
The court submitted the case to a jury upon special issues, and the verdict, when construed as a whole, was in favor of the defendant, and judgment was rendered accordingly.
The different questions presented in appellant's brief have been duly considered, and are decided against appellant.
No reversible error being shown, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
É=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBEIt in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes