Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Galveston term, 1884, and embracing the greater part of the Austin term, 1884. Volume 61. Page: 77
xv, 806 p., 22 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1884.] MCCAULEY v. LONG & Co. 77
Statement of the case.
to defendants, and by reason of the fact that plaintiff ran the logs
loose and singly without boring auger holes in them, they were much
more valuable to defendants, and defendants could realize a greater
quantity of merchantable timber from them; that by running said
three million feet the plaintiffs had demonstrated to defendants, by
actual experiment,, that he could run the logs unrafted and loose,
saving to defendants the cost and lumber as aforesaid."
The court on special demurrer also struck out the following allegation
in plaintiff's petition: "Plaintiff alleges that defendants, in
prohibiting and preventing plaintiff from continuing in the performance
of and completing said contract, did so wrongfully, fraudulently
and maliciously, and with the intent not only to deprive
plaintiff of the profit which he would have made as hereinbefore
alleged, but also to appropriate the same to themselves."
The remainder of the petition, continuing, alleged the indebtedness
of the $1,500, the contract price of the twelve thousand logs actually
run; also $6,629.62 as damages, the profit be would have made on
the logs put in the river after the breach; also $10,000 as exemplary
damages,-this last clause in the petition being stricken out by the
court on special exception; the petition concluding with a prayer
for $15,000 damages.
To this defendants pleaded:
1. General demurrer, which was overruled.
2. Special demurrers.
3. General deniaL
0 . . .. A special answer admitting the contract as set out in
plaintiff's petition to be the one between the parties, and making the
following counter allegations to plaintiff's petition, in substance:
" Plaintiff did not perform and fulfil his contract as alleged by him;
that plaintiff, about October 1, 1878, abandoned the river and refused
to further perform his contract, through defendants were at all
times ready and willing so to do; that on said October 1, 1878,, de.
fendants had in the river at Yellow Bluff, and below and near there,
four thousand logs, which they were anxious to have run, as their
mills were running short of logs that it was the duty of plaintiff
to run said logs, but instead of doing so he abandoned the river and
esablishied a timber camp of his own,. amd with his employees entered
into the logging or timber business on his own account,, instead
of employing his time and that, of his employees in clearing out said
river and running defendants' logs [and giving:his personal attention
and supervision thereto], as he was bound to'do under his contract;
that defendants were indueed to enter into said contract solely be
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Galveston term, 1884, and embracing the greater part of the Austin term, 1884. Volume 61., book, 1903; St. Louis, Mo.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28513/m1/93/: accessed May 3, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .