Ginther v. Southwest Workover Company
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
NORVELL, Justice.^
There is some dispute between the parties as to the exact nature of this action. In the court below it seems to have been treated as one upon an account for money due for services rendered. Appellants contend that the action is one on an express contract and that it was necessary that appellee plead and prove that it had completed the agreement by performing the prescribed services in a careful and workmanlike manner; that ap-pellee, as plaintiff below, had not requested a submission of this issue to the jury, and consequently had in effect waived its right of recovery.
As we…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. CadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Wright v. Traders & General InsuranceTexas Supreme Court · 1939
- Ewing, Ind. Exs. v. Wm. L. Foley, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1926
- Silliman v. GanoTexas Supreme Court · 1897
- Pickens v. HarrisonTexas Supreme Court · 1952
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Delhi Pipeline Corporation v. Lewis, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1966
- South Texas Building Co. v. Ideal Engineering, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1966
- City of Corpus Christi v. Atlantic Mills Servicing Corp. of Fort WorthCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1963
- Southwestern Motor Transport Co. v. Valley Weathermaicers, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1967
- Delhi Pipeline Corporation v. Lewis, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1966
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.