Greene v. Condor Petroleum Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Mitchell Resort v. C S Builders

    570 S.W.2d 463 (Tex. Civ. App. 1978)   Cited 9 times
    Assuming that had plaintiffs pleaded need for accounting simultaneously with claims for breach of fiduciary duty, jury verdict would have been affirmed

    In Amberson v. Horton, 255 S.W.2d 580 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1953, writ ref. n. r. e.), the court said: ". . . Subject to certain exceptions, the general rule is that an accounting between partners is a condition precedent to an action on partnership claims and transactions. Greene v. Condor Petroleum Co., Tex.Civ.App., 121 S.W.2d 381, reversed on other grounds, Com.App., 135 Tex. 215, 140 S.W.2d 844; Miller v. Howell, Tex.Civ.App., 234 S.W.2d 925; Rose v. Motes, Tex.Civ.App., 220 S.W.2d 734; Warner v. Winn, Tex.Civ.App., 191 S.W.2d 747; Masterson v. Allen, Tex.Civ.App., 69 S.W.2d 539. See Annotation 168 A.L.R. 1088; 68 C.J.S. Partnership §§ 110, 374, 407; 32 Tex.Jur., Partnership, § 210.

  2. Condor Petroleum Co. v. Greene

    164 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. Civ. App. 1942)   Cited 14 times
    Stating "principal who . . . retains the benefits of a contract . . . cannot repudiate that part of the contract which is unsatisfactory to him"

    From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant has appealed. (For the former record of this case in the appellate court, see Greene v. Condor Pet. Co. et al., Tex. Civ. App. 121 S.W.2d 381; Id., 135 Tex. 215, 140 S.W.2d 844.) Defendant's first point is that the court erred in refusing to render judgment for it on its plea of limitation under the two-year statute.