Seeligson v. Taylor Compress Co.
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Galveston. Tried below before the Hon. William H. Stewart. The following was the agreed statement of the points under rule 59: Seeligson, who was plaintiff in the court below at the time of the institution of this suit and at the dates hereinafter named, was a cotton factor and commission merchant, and as such doing business in the city and county of Galveston.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Galveston. Tried below before the Hon. William H. Stewart. The following was the agreed statement of the points under rule 59: Seeligson, who was plaintiff in the court below at the time of the institution of this suit and at the dates hereinafter named, was a cotton factor and commission merchant, and as such doing business in the city and county of Galveston. The Taylor Compress Company was a private corporation, duly chartered as such, “for the purpose of receiving, storing, compressing, bailing, picking and manufacturing cotton, wool, hides and other produce. Seeligson was the…
1Opinion of the Court
Gould, Chief Justice.—
Responding to the questions submitted for our decision, we say:
1. That the sending of the cotton in question to the warehouse of appellant did amount to a contract to pay the charge of thirty cents before removal of the cotton uncompressed; and that this is so notwithstanding appellant had always protested against that charge, and although appellant sent his cotton there for storage in the ordinary course of business, and although, save this and other like warehouses carried on by compress companies making like charges, there was no other place for the storage of cotton,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ladd v. Southern Cotton Press & Manufacturing Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1880
3Cited by4 opinions
- Jones v. CarterCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1907
- Denver Jobbers' Ass'n v. PeopleColorado Court of Appeals · 1912
- Bagdad Land & Lumber Co. v. Louisville & Nashville RailroadSupreme Court of Florida · 1937
- Denver Jobbers' Ass'n v. PeopleColorado Court of Appeals · 1912