Court Opinion

ID: 9828589
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:31:35.04348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:50.730984
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The appellees attack our holding “that appellant’s contract with the company was conclusively proven.” This expression is too extravagant and is for that reason withdrawn.
The finding of the court is as follows:
*880“I find that on October 18, 1920, W. A. McCullough made a parol contract of some sort with plaintiff, P. W. Andrews, for employment of him, and that on same date’ McCullough wrote a letter to Andrews ‘confirming the conversation this day had with you,’ as shown by the .letter introduced in evidence, which was dated October 18, 1920, and signed ‘W. A. McCullough, president,’ and was written on the embossed letter heads of the Manhattan Petroleum Company, which purported to show the names of the trustees and officers of said company. And I find that whatever contract said letter evidences was really made, but whether it was made to work for the Manhattan Texas Petroleum Company or for W. A. McCullough individually or for McCullough’s interest in some other company, I find the evidence is insufficient to show.
“Plaintiff performed the services specified in said contract,” etc.
The findings as to the contract were merely findings of evidentiary facts, and not the ultimate fact.
The fourth finding:
“I find that subsequent to W. A. McCullough, Walter L. Morris, and W. L, Mann becoming trustees, the said Morris and Mann were shown the written evidence of the plaintiff’s contract as signed by W. A. McCullough, president, same being shortly after their induction into office, and that they as such trustees of the Manhattan Texas Petroleum Company acquiesced therein and ratified the same.”
These findings do not support a judgment for defendant, but to the contrary. We simply hold that the evidence is such that it shows the judgment appealed from to be clearly wrong, and in such cases it becomes our duty to remand for a new trial. McGuffey v. Oil Ass’n (Tex. Civ. App.) 211 S. W. 335.
Motion is overruled.