Del Curto v. Billingsley

4 Citing cases

  1. Whitney Properties Corp. v. Moran

    494 S.W.2d 587 (Tex. Civ. App. 1973)   Cited 5 times

    The court observed in that case that a fact question did exist as to whether plaintiff could have raised a bond in sufficient amount to satisfy the contract. See also Del Curto v. Billingsley, 169 S.W. 393 (Tex.Civ.App., Austin 1914, writ ref'd) and Corzelius v. Oliver, 148 Tex. 76, 220 S .W.2d 632 (1949). In Terrell, Atkins & Harvin v. Proctor, 172 S.W. 996 (Tex.Civ.App., San Antonio 1915), the court again pointed out that even though a party alleged his ability to make payments, it was necessary that such party both allege and prove ability to make the payment as required by the contract.

  2. C. I. T. Corp. v. Waltrip

    70 S.W.2d 206 (Tex. Civ. App. 1934)

    Appellant had, or received thereafter, the remaining thirty-eight automobiles, and we doubt, in such case, the sufficiency of such a ground as relieving it of further tender. However, we do not express any decision thereon, involving as it does the indivisibility of the obligation of appellant, or, on the other hand, whether such breach indicated nonperformance of the entire redemption by appellee, Del Curto v. Billingsley (Tex.Civ.App.) 169 S.W. 393, for there was voluminous contradictory testimony on the subject of the tender of the five cars. The jury found they were not tendered.

  3. McClung Const. Co. v. Muncy

    65 S.W.2d 786 (Tex. Civ. App. 1933)   Cited 10 times

    If they were able to provide themselves with such equipment, and willing to do so, it is immaterial that they were not in physical possession of same prior to or at the time of the alleged misrepresentations. 55 C.J. 320; Del Curto v. Billingsley (Tex.Civ.App.) 169 S.W. 393. They further believe that, while same may have been sufficient to call the court's attention to the error so as to require a correct charge, the failure to give a correct charge cannot be considered because no error is assigned in this court questioning the court's actions in this particular, this because the statute requires a specification of error.

  4. Koontz v. Savely

    233 S.W. 540 (Tex. Civ. App. 1921)

    It is entire, because it shows by its nature or purpose and express terms that there was to be paid but one rental. Del Curto v. Billingsley, 169 S.W. 393; Jones v. Gammel, 94 S.W. 191; Jones v. Eastham, 224 S.W. 223; 6 Ruling Case Law, ยง 246, p. 858, For the consideration of this case we do not think it necessary to discuss the so-called Ferguson Act (Laws 1915, c. 38 [Vernon's Ann.Civ.St.Supp. 1918, art. 5475]).