Court Opinion

ID: 9833155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:29:52.673529+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:00.183088
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Through some error it was stated in the original opinion that service against the Packing Company in this suit was had upon its Ouero representative, Mr. Bennett; that recitation, being a mistake, is now stricken out.
Appellant very' earnestly again insists, upon rehearing, that the offer which determines the situs of the making of the contract here involved was both presented to and accepted by it in Houston; that the testimony of Mr. E. H. Terrell, of Houston, who was acting as agent for the Cotton Oil Company in buying the car of oil for it, conclusively established that as a fact. But we cannot agree' that such is the state of the evidence, because, even if the telephone conversation antedating the written contract sued upon is looked to, it is found, not only that both Mr. Terrell and Mr. Hamilton considered the former without authority to conclude the purchase of the oil without referring the matter back to the latter, but that in fact that course was pursued and the agreement to consummate the transaction was made or confirmed by Mr. Hamilton in Cuero; his statement about it was this:
“The contract was accepted in Ouero, Tex., over the telephone, and these brokers mailed confirmation to me from Houston. Mr. Terrell rang me up over the telephone and made an offer to me on behalf of the Houston Packing Company, conforming to this contract, and I accepted it over the telephone. * * * At the time I made that agreement, I was in the office of the Ouero Cotton Oil & Manufacturing Company in Ouero, De Witt county, Tex. If I signed the contract for the purchase of the oil involved in this suit, I signed it here in Ouero, De Witt county, Tex.”
To the same effect Mr. Terrell testified:
“The contract for a sale of a car of oil from the Houston Packing Company to the Ouero Cotton Oil & Manufacturing Company on or about September 27, 1917, which forms the basis of this suit, was made through me as broker. I recall how the trade was made. On the date mentioned I called Mr. Hamilton on the long-distance telephone. * * * On completion of the long-distance conversation with Mr. Hamilton, I immediately called up Mr. Maurin, of the Houston Packing Company, and put up to him the proposition as authorized by Mr. Hamilton, as stated above, and he accepted the same, whereupon I immediately telephoned Mr. Hamilton that I had made the trade for him with the Houston Packing Company, which he confirmed as being in accordance with his original proposition.”
We therefore still think our former determination that the contract was made in Cuero to be correct, and overrule the motion.
Overruled.