Court Opinion

ID: 9648529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:25:26.540344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:02.521580
License: Public Domain

HAMBLEN, Chief Justice.
I concur in the view expressed in the opinion of the Court and strongly urged by appellee to the effect that the note sued upon should be construed together with the original contract between appellant and appellee’s predecessor in title to .the note. But I.differ with the holding that when so construed, the note is entitled to those presumptions, and is subject to the same rules of law which are applicable to the note standing alone.
■ 'Appellee’s'predecessor iirtitle to the note sued on had contracted to manufacture; deliver, and install a packaging machine for an agreed price in excess of $10,000. Four thousand dollars of this amount had been paid by appellant.prior to delivery, and the note- represented the balance- of the contract price. After delivery to appellant’s plant, but before installation therein, the machine was partially destroyed by fire, thus preventing complete, performance of the contract by the seller. The note was but a part of the entire contract between seller and buyer. That contract was executory by its very nature. Therefore, in or.der to bring suit upon the note, and recover judgment for its full amount, which represented the entire balance due. upon such executory contract, it was incumbent upon appellee- to prove compliance with that contract. Kel-say Lumber Co. v. Crowell, Tex.Civ.App., 19 S.W.2d 368.
To- apply, any other rule to. the facts of this case, works, a manifest injustice. If the note is to be treated as an unconditional obligation, unconditionally delivered, then appellant is limited to his plea of want or’ failure of consideration. There is no doubt' but that under a plea of failure of cbrisidbr-ation, proof play be made of partial failure. Brantley v. Thomas, 22 Tex. 270, 271, 73 Am.Dec. 264. But it is also true that the burden would be upon appellant to prove, not only a partial failure of consideration, but the extent thereof. Willis v. Bullitt, 22 Tex. 330; Gutta Percha & Rubber Mfg. Co. v. City of Cleburne, 102 Tex. 36, 112 S.W. 1047. In this case the proof conclusively shows that a part of the consideration for which this note was given,-consisted’of the seller’s agreement to install the packaging machine. There is evidence in the record showing that such installation comprehended a training period 'of ,seyeral..,-weeks during which the seller’s representatjyeq would instruct appellant’s employees.'in. the; operation of the machine, thu,s:, indicating an expense of some substantial (amount;, no part of which was incurred or paid by-the seller. Information as to the.,aniount of that expense, and the proportion) which it bears to the total contract price,, is. .man.i'i festly within .the exclusive knowledge of the. seller. .It would not be possible fo.r.pp,-, pellant to prove the facfs, necessary to sus-, tain the defense of partial, failure )oi consideration. . ■
It is my view that in this suit appellee should not prevail for the reason that the note is part of an executory contract, .and appellee has failed to prove performance of the original payee’s obligations thereunder. Since such performance was made impossible through no fault of appellee’s predecessor in title, it is undoubtedly entitled to maintain a proper suit upon the contract, wherein its rights thereunder can be determined, and all equities between the parties can be adjusted. In' such suit there could also be determined the credit *942to which appeilanthnight-'be'entitled result-' ing from the salvage value, if any, of the machine, which the record shows, was at the seller’s request, returned to and received by it in its damaged condition. But the judgment as rendered for the full amount of the note, without the adjustment of those equities, appears to me to be' unjust, and should be reversed.