Case Name: James Nations et al. v. H. E. Thomas
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 221
Docket Number: 
Parties: James Nations et al. v. H. E. Thomas.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 221–225

Head Matter:
James Nations et al. v. H. E. Thomas.
The instructions of the court must correspond with the case made by the pleadings and evidence. Where the defendant pleads and proves a partial failure of consideration, he is only liable for what the article purchased is actually worth.
Where it was proved that a drummer had obtained orders for a wholesale house, which it was in the habit of filling, the agency was sufficiently established to authorize proof of the representation of such agent in behalf of his principal. Parol evidence, to explain why a letter' admitting the debt and apologizing for non-payment was written, is not admissible.
Error from Gonzales. The case was tried before Hon. Fielding Jones, one of the district judges.
Thomas-sued Brantley and Nations for a note of §323 31, dated 25th March, 1857, and due at eight months from date. The defendants plead that the consideration of the note was tobacco; that the agent of the plaintiff, being authorized thereto, had represented the tobacco to be of superior quality, when, in fact, it was worthless and rotten, whereby the defendants were damaged $750, which sum they plead in reconvention. As usual in Texas, there were various amendments, but the foregoing was the gist of the whole matter.
The plaintiff, by way of replication, averred that the defendants, after full examination, re-affirmed their purchase, and rested satisfied with it, and exhibited a letter apologizing for non-payment. A statement of facts showed that the defendants proved that half the tobacco was worthless, and all -of it unmerchantable, and none of it corresponded with the invoice. Had it been as represented, they could have sold it for $700; as it was, they sold all but two boxes, for which they obtained about cost. There was a bill of exceptions, wherein it was offered to prove, that one Graves, in the spring of 1857, was agent for the plaintiffs, and that he exhibited excellent samples of tobacco; and upon his representation the purchase was made, and the note given. It being objected, that the agency of Graves could not be proven by his own statement that he was agent, it was proved by witnesses that he had shown samples to other merchants, and they had acted upon his statement, and made purchases of tobacco from the plaintiffs; yet the court sustained the objection, and rejected all such proof of the agency of Graves. The defendants also offered, in explanation of the letter apologizing for not paying, proof that they supposed that, not having returned the tobacco, they would be compelled to pay for it. ^
The other facts, and the charge of the judge, are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the judge. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of the note, from which the defendants prosecuted error.
Parker and Miller, for the appellant.
—In all cases where there is an express or implied warranty, the vendee of goods may show a partial failure of consideration in defense of an action against him for the purchase-money without returning the goods. (See 22 Tex., 175; 1 Pars, on Con. 473, 474; 2 Kent, 474.)
No brief for appellee.

Opinion:
Bell, J.
—The court below instructed the jury as follows: "If you believe the defendants kept the tobacco without any offer to return it,. and sold a part of it, although the tobacco may not have been just such as was ordered, you should find for the plaintiff the amount you may believe from'the evidence the defendants have sold the tobacco for."
If the pleadings and evidence had presented a case in which the vendee of goods, upon ascertaining that the articles forwarded to him did not correspond with the order sent to the vendor, had notified the vendor that he repudiated the contract, and had proceeded to sell the goods for the vendor's benefit, the above instruction would have been correct and applicable. But the instruction had no application to the case made by the pleadings and evidence. The plaintiff's suit was upon the note. The defendants sought to show a partial failure of consideration, by proving that the tobacco furnished to them was not such as they ordered, and not such as was worth the price charged for it. In such a case, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover what the tobacco was actually worth, and the defendant would be relieved from paying the difference between the actual value of the tobacco and the amount of the note given for the price. Even if the plaintiff's pleadings had stated a case of a sale by the vendee of the tobacco for his benefit, after a repudiation of the contract of purchase by the vendee, the plaintiff could only have recovered the amount claimed in his petition; and in this point of view again the instruction was not strictly correct.
It might be supposed that the jury were not influenced by this instruction, inasmuch as they returned a verdict for the amount of the note sued on, were it not that there was evidence that the defendants sold the tobacco for just about the original cost of it; so that the verdict is in correspondence with this instruction.
We are also, of opinion, that the court erred in not permitting the defendants to prove, by the witnesses Willis, Monroe, and Law, that Graves represented himself to be the agent of the plaintiff, after laying the foundation for such evidence, by proving that, in the spring of 1857, the witnesses (who were merchants) had sent orders for tobacco to the plaintiff through Graves, and that the orders had been filled by plaintiff. The defendants had first offered to prove the representations of Graves, that he was the agent of the plaintiff, and the court properly refused to hear the evidence. But after having proved that the plaintiff had recognized Graves as his agent, by filling orders sent through him, it was competent for the defendants to prove his representations, because his representations connected themselves with his acts as agent' in a way to affect the plaintiff. It is doubtless true, that the controlling consideration with the jury was, that the defendants, by their letter of November 19,1857, had waived their right to set up the inferior quality of the tobacco as a defense to the suit of the plaintiff. But it was for the jury to pass upon the -evidence of the waiver, and it was therefore the right of the defendants to introduce evidence in support of their pleas. These considerations will lead to a reversal of the judgment.
It was not error for the court to refuse the evidence offered by the defendants, to show that the letter written by them on the 19th of November, 1857, was written under a misapprehension of their rights. If the offer had been to show that the letter was written in ignorance of facts, the case might have been different; but ignorance of one's legal rights is no excuse.
The judgment is reversed and the cause
Eemaatded.