Case Name: WATERMAN LUMBER & SUPPLY CO. v. HOLMES
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-10-23
Citations: 161 S.W. 70
Docket Number: 
Parties: WATERMAN LUMBER & SUPPLY CO. v. HOLMES.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 161
Pages: 70–73

Head Matter:
WATERMAN LUMBER & SUPPLY CO. v. HOLMES.
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Galveston.
Oct. 23, 1913.
On the Merits, Nov. 18, 1913.)
On Proceeding to Strike Briefs.
1. Appeal and Error (§ 767 ) — Briefs—Form —Necessity op “Printed Brieb” — “Written Brief.”
Under Rev. Civ. St. 1911, art. 1614, providing that when a cause or suit is taken to the Court of Civil Appeals by appeal, writ of error, or otherwise, the attorney for either party may file written or printed briefs, or argument, if written, not to exceed 15 pages, and rule 37 as amended (149 S. W. x), providing that the copies of the briefs filed in the appellate court shall be plainly written or printed, and if it covers more than 15 pages of foolscap, shall be printed, a typewritten brief is a written and not a printed brief, and a typewritten brief containing 40 pages will be stricken out.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 3102; Dec. Dig. § 767. ]
On the Merits.
2. Contracts (§ 323 ) — Actions fob Breach —Questions foe Jury.
In an action for refusing to permit plaintiff to perform a contract for the hauling and distributing of railroad ties along a railroad, evidence held to make a question for the jury as to whether plaintiff abandoned the contract before the cancellation thereof by defendant; and hence the court improperly charged that the evidence showed no breach by plaintiff.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 1311, 1349, 1466, 1543-1548,1827, 1827% ; Dec. Dig. § 323. ]
3. Trial (§ 191 ) — Instructions on Weight of Evidence.
In a contractor’s action for damages from defendant’s refusal to permit him to perform á contract for hauling and distributing railroad ties along a railroad, an instruction that the contractor could recover only such profits as he would.have made by hauling the ties as defend- ■ ant made them and demanded them; that, in arriving at his damage, the irregularity of the job, if any, its distance from the contractor’s home, the expense he would have gone to in feeding his team, keeping up his harness and wagons, for drivers for teams, and all other expenses, should be considered, figuring only his net profits, if any, that he could have made under the contract — was properly refused, as it was on the weight of the evidence, and assumed that the irregularity of the job, etc., were parts of the expense of performance.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 420-431, 435; Dec. Dig. § 191. ] .
4. Damages (§ 62 ) — Duty to Minimize— Breach of Contract.
Under a contract' for hauling and distributing ties along a railroad, the contractor, upon the refusal of the other party to permit him to perform, could not sit'idly by and wait until the completion of the hauling, and then recover the net profits which he would have made had the contract not been breached, but was bound to use his wagons and teams in other employment, if there was any he could get, and the amount that he could have so made should be deducted from the amount to which he would be entitled had he carried out the contract.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Damages, Cent. Dig. §§ 119-131; Dec. Dig. § 62. ]
5.Damages (§ 124 ) — Measure of Damages— Breach of Contract.
A contractor was entitled as damages, for the failure of the other party to permit him to perform the contract for hauling and distributing railroad ties, only to the net profits of the enterprise, which would be the difference between the contract price and the expenses necessarily incident to the performance of the contract.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Damages, Cent. Dig. §§ 326-338; Dec. Dig. § 124. ]
Appeal from District Court, San' Augustine County; A. E. Davis, Judge.
Action by W. H. Holmes against the Waterman Lumber & Supply Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Davis, Davis & Davis, of Center, for appellant. Blount & Strong, of Nacogdoches, for appellee.
For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
McMEANS, J.
Article 1614, Revised Statutes 1911, provides: "When any cause or suit may be taken up from any inferior court to the Court of Civil Appeals, whether by appeal, writ of error, or otherwise, it shall be lawful for the attorney for both plaintiff and defendant to file in the papers of said suit or cause written or printed briefs, or argument, if written not to exceed fifteen pages," etc. Rule 37 (149 S. W. x), as amended by our Supreme Court on October 30, 1912, and which amendment became effective November 15, 1912, provides: "The briefs of the parties, framed in accordance with-these rules must be signed by-the party or his counsel and the copies thereof filed in the appellate court shall be plainly written or printed, and if it covers more than fifteen pages of foolscap, they shall be printed." In National Bank v. Lovenberg, 63 Tex. 512, our Supreme Court held; in effect, that a typewritten brief should be regarded as a written, and not a printed, brief. See, also, Heath v. Hall, 27 S. W. 160. Appellant's brief is violative of the statute and rule above quoted, in that it consists of more than 40 typewritten pages. As said in Heath v. Hall, supra, "We must insist on a compliance with this rule, as it is intended to aid in the dispatch of business."
The briefs are ordered stricken out and returned to -appellant's counsel, and appellant will be allowed to file copies of its brief, either properly written or printed, within 15 days from this date, and in case of failure so to do, the appeal will be. dismissed. , •