G. D. Douglass, Petitioners v. Panama, Inc., Respondents

Summary

The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment notwithstanding verdict, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's findings that the promised bonuses were not conditioned on profit, that the bonus promises were sufficiently definite, that Shiflett had authority to bind the corporation, and that Panama, Inc. made a substantial profit in 1965.