TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ford Motor Co., Edsel Division v. Boatman

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, EDSEL DIVISION, Et Al., Appellants, v. Howard E. BOATMAN, Appellee

Ford Motor Co. v. Boatman, 345 S.W.2d 782 (Tex. App. 1961)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Texas · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 20, 1961
Docket
No. 6365
Judges
Hightower, McNeill
Citations
345 S.W.2d 7821961 Tex. App. LEXIS 2246

Opinion — Hightower

HIGHTOWER, Justice.

This is a venue matter. Appellee brought suit in Orange County against appellants, Ford Motor Company, Edsel Division, and O. S. McLamore, doing business as Mc-Lamore Motors, individually and as agent of Ford Motor Company, Edsel Division, alleging, in substance, his purchase of an automobile from O. S. McLamore in his capacity as agent for appellant and that by virtue of certain misrepresentations and breach of written warranties, he had elected to rescind the contract of sale. He sought recovery of purchase money and damages resulting to himself as an incident of the sale against the defendants, jointly and severally. Ford Motor Company filed its plea of privilege to be sued in Dallas County, which plea was duly controverted by the plaintiff, and upon a hearing thereof was overruled by the court on the basis of Subd. 4, Art. 1995, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St., providing that where two or more defendants reside in different counties, suit may be brought in any county where one of the defendants resides.

The appellee has failed to file a brief herein. In numerous instances the brief of appellant asserts the record to be completely devoid of proof that McLamore was the agent of appellant, or that he was otherwise a proper party to the suit against appellant. By reason of appellee’s failure to file a brief we accept these assertions of appellant as a correct statement of the record. Rule 417, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. There being no proof that Mc-Lamore was the agent of appellant, or if he was, that some circumstance existed which would give rise to the exception to the general rule that the agent is not liable on a contract made for his principal, the judgment of the trial court must be reversed. Rudco Oil & Gas Co. v. Ogden, Tex.Civ.App., 167 S.W.2d 586 ; King v. Jones, Tex.Civ.App,, 307 S.W.2d 851 ; Vol. 2, Tex.Jur., 2d, Sec. 154, p. 602.

Judgment reversed and appellee’s cause of action against appellant is ordered transferred to Dallas County.

McNEILL, J., not sitting.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1963: 11964: 11974: 11985: 119632026peak 1963 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Mediacomp, Inc. v. Capital Cities Communication, Inc.698 S.W.2d 207 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1985)
  2. Wilson County Peanut Company v. Hahn364 S.W.2d 468 (Tex. App. 1963)
  3. McGough v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc.384 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. App. 1964)
  4. Helland v. WESTERN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY516 S.W.2d 437 (Tex. App. 1974)

Most recent

  1. Mediacomp, Inc. v. Capital Cities Communication, Inc.698 S.W.2d 207 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1985)
  2. Helland v. WESTERN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY516 S.W.2d 437 (Tex. App. 1974)
  3. McGough v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc.384 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. App. 1964)
  4. Wilson County Peanut Company v. Hahn364 S.W.2d 468 (Tex. App. 1963)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Rudco Oil & Gas Co. v. Ogden, 167 S.W.2d 586 (Tex. App. 1942) 9
King v. Jones, 307 S.W.2d 851 (Tex. App. 1957) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list