Court Opinion

ID: 9833317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:36:48.23967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:01.559074
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The opinion of this court is not in conflict with the case of Palestine lee & Fuel Co. v. Walter Connally & Co., 148 S. W. 1112, decided by the Court of Civil Appeals of the Sixth Supreme Judicial District. In that case there was an order by appellant on ap-pellee for machinery; the contract price being $2,400. Appellant countermanded the order at a time when the machinery was completed, but was not quite ready for shipment, and appellee sued to recover the damages arising from a breach of the contract, and not, as appellee herein did, for the contract price of the machinery. In that case the manufacturer recovered the difference between the contract price and the price for which the machinery was sold, amounting to $1,102. The court, in affirming the judgment, held: “From the facts found by the trial court, it appeared that the ownership of the machinery never passed to appellant (citing the cases cited by this court). Therefore, when appellant by its letter of May 23d countermanded its order for the machinery, it exercised a right it possessed, subject to an obligation it thereby incurred to pay to appellees the damages they thereby suffered.” In that case the court also held that appellee could have treated the property as that of appellant and sold it and then recovered the difference between that price and the contract price. It is not held that appellee could ship the machinery to the appellant and then recover the contract price for it as was done in this ease. The opinion in that case is in perfect harmony with the opinion in this.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.