Hahl v. Deutsch
Court of Appeals of Texas
Where the evidence is conflicting a finding of fact by the trial court will not be disturbed. 2.—Contract—Acceptance—Estoppel. If in fact plaintiff did not comply with his contract for boring a well, and was not excused therefrom by some act or interference on the part of defendant, the latter was not thereby bound to refrain from using the well or else incur liability for the contract price.
Read the full summary
Where the evidence is conflicting a finding of fact by the trial court will not be disturbed. 2.—Contract—Acceptance—Estoppel. If in fact plaintiff did not comply with his contract for boring a well, and was not excused therefrom by some act or interference on the part of defendant, the latter was not thereby bound to refrain from using the well or else incur liability for the contract price. He had spent money on the work, and his subsequent use of it did not necessarily constitute an acceptance. 3.—Contract—Failure to Complete—Ratable Compensation. The plaintiff having been prevented by the…
1Opinion of the Court
GILL, Chief Justice.
Richard Deutsch brought this suit to re cover of C. W. Hahl $1,012, the alleged contract price for sinking a well for. Hahl. He pleaded the contract of employment, the performance of the work, and prayed to recover the contract price. He also pleaded that the contract as first made was modified on account of the nature of a part of the strata through which he drilled, and the size of the casing was thereby reduced from ten to eight inches. That he completed 250 feet of the well with eight inch casing, but was prevented by defendant from completing the 60 feet next to the…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Melody Home Manufacturing Co. v. MorrisonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1973
- Jordan Drilling Co. v. StarrCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1949
- Smith v. PattersonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1927
- Herron v. LackeyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1977
- Buie v. HofheinzCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1953
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.