Court Opinion

ID: 9665260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:43:30.610059+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:14.243986
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellant calls attention to some inaccuracies of fact apparent in original opinion which will be corrected; not affecting however the conclusions of law there stated. While Heidrich, vice president of Miami, on a trip to Dallas in November 1947, confirmed Sloan’s exclusive distributorship as made by Coy in August previously, we took from appellant’s brief the further statement that said initial agreement was “subject to approval by the Home Office”; see also statement of 'facts, p. 88. Our reference to Harris as a “pusher” in promotion of defendant’s sales is withdrawn. Another party was employed in this capacity; said Harris merely living on Vickery Boulevard, Dallas, while working for Miami, where he received and answered all correspondence. We are cited to no record basis for appellant’s assertion that the Company “always sent fully loaded trucks o'f merchandise to Texas, whether a full load had been ordered or not.”
Appellee, in turn, strenuously complains of our reversal of cause in so far as same relates to defendant’s cross action. In course of plaintiff’s objections to these requested issues, it was admitted that there was only a verbal discussion thereof and “that by agreement of- all parties and with approval of the court, it has been agreed and is not denied by the plaintiff that- defendant might submit issues as he alleged in paragraph 2 of said first amended motion for new trial with reference to the breach of ‘such agreement and damages,’ viz., the alleged agreement on ‘August 1947’ * In the same connection we express no opinion as to sufficiency of these issues, either in form, substance, or materiality; such being a - matter for determination by the trial court on due hearing of such cross action. The motions ¡for rehearing filed by respective parties are in all respects overruled.-