Rushing v. Mayfield Co.

4 Citing cases

  1. R. Olsen Oil Co. v. Fidler

    199 F.2d 868 (10th Cir. 1952)   Cited 8 times

    66 C.J., Vendor Purchaser, ยง 32, p. 508. Rushing v. Mayfield Co., 5 Cir., 62 F.2d 318; Ebensberger v. Sinclair Refining Co., 5 Cir., 165 F.2d 803; Brunson v. Carter Oil Co., D.C.Okla., 259 F. 656. Here we have a contract, clear and unambiguous, in which Olsen agreed to perform services for a valuable consideration furnished entirely by Fidler.

  2. McIntosh v. Leisk

    95 F.2d 164 (5th Cir. 1938)   Cited 2 times

    Specific performance of a contract is not a matter of right. It is never granted unless it seems equitable to do so. Rushing v. Mayfield Co., 5 Cir., 62 F.2d 318, 319; Mandeville Thompson v. Danciger, 5 Cir., 62 F.2d 130; Giddens v. Estero Bay Estates, 5 Cir., 18 F.2d 265. All the equities in this case are with the plaintiffs; none with the defendant.

  3. Bauer v. Taylor

    118 S.W.2d 826 (Tex. Civ. App. 1938)   Cited 6 times

    In Rushing v. Mayfield Co., Tex. Civ. App. 104 S.W.2d 619, on the question of proof to establish an issue of estoppel by judgment, we said. (page 625): "We have found no authority that would sanction the proposition that the judgment [of the appellate court] may be wholly dispensed with as evidence and the opinion looked to exclusively." In that case the appellate court was the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. 5 Cir., 62 F.2d 318. It is not necessary for us to determine this point.

  4. Rushing v. Mayfield Co.

    104 S.W.2d 619 (Tex. Civ. App. 1937)   Cited 4 times

    The cause of action which plaintiffs in their petition attempt to allege is one for damages for the breach of a contract. It is an action which in jurisdictions requiring legal and equitable actions to be administered separately is classed as an action at law. It is not the same cause of action which was involved in Rushing v. Mayfield Co. (C.C.A.) 62 F.2d 318, 320. The cause of action which the court in that case held the pleadings insufficient to state was one for specific performance of a contract. It is true that in the alternative an action for damages was attempted to be alleged, but the court held that that was not proper equity practice and excluded it from consideration.