Blanton v. Sherman Compress Co.

• Decision Date: 13 February 1953
• Docket Number: No. 14601,14601
• Citation: 256 S.W.2d 884
• Parties: BLANTON v. SHERMAN COMPRESS CO.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 884

256 S.W.2d 884

BLANTON v. SHERMAN COMPRESS CO.

No. 14601.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Dallas.

Feb. 13, 1953.

Rehearing Denied March 13, 1953.

Joe A. Keith and Paul N. Brown, both of Sherman, for appellant.

Abernathy & Abernathy, McKinney, and Freeman, Wolfe, Henderson & Bryant, Sherman, for appellee.

DIXON, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order overruling appellant's plea of privilege seeking to have the suit transferred to appellant's residence, Cooke County, Texas. Appellee seeks to maintain venue in Grayson County on the ground that appellant committed a fraud in Grayson County, within the meaning of subdiv. 7, of Art. 1995, R.C.S., Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1995, subd. 7. Hereafter appellee will be referred to as plaintiff and appellant as defendant.

Plaintiff, a corporation, operates a compress at Sherman, Texas. It alleges that it handles two types of cotton: concentrated cotton and transit cotton. Its tariff for handling the latter type is much less than for handling the former.

L. O. Blanton, Sr., was the president of the corporation during all the time involved herein. Defendant Roy L. Blanton is a son of L. O. Blanton, Sr., but at all times involved herein he was a stranger to the corporation so far as any official connection is concerned.

L. O. Blanton, Sr., president of the corporation, lived in Dallas and did not often visit the company's office in Sherman; in fact most of the officers lived elsewhere than in Sherman. S. A. Grafft, a resident of Sherman, was the company's manager. Plaintiff's pleadings of the misrepresentation relied on to constitute fraud are as follows:

'At said time and place the defendant represented to the said Grafft, and to this plaintiff, that his father had agreed that the defendant would be charged transit rates for his cotton, though the cotton was to be handled and treated as concentrated cotton.'

Defendant's main point on appeal is that, viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiff, the testimony offered in support of the above pleading fails as a matter of law to make out a case of actionable fraud. This contention, if correct, would require us to reverse the order of the trial court overruling defendant's plea of privilege. Austin v. Grisson-Robertson Stores, Tex.Civ.App., 32 S.W.2d 205.

Plaintiff does not claim that defendant stated expressly in exact words that his father had given instructions for his cotton to be handled at the lower rate. What plaintiff does claim is that defendant's language means the same thing and that plaintiff's manager, Grafft, under the circumstances properly so interpreted his statement.

We shall not attempt to reproduce all the evidence touching the point. Here is a portion of Grafft's testimony:

'Q. Did he tell you he had talked with his father about the cotton? * * * A. Yes, sir. * * *

'Q. Mr. Grafft, state whether or not he caused you to believe that he had his father's permission to receive concessions on that cotton. A. He did. * * * Roy came to the compress and told me that he expected to handle quite a lot of cotton through Sherman; that he had talked with his father, that we would get the weighing and compression and/or flat removal if the cotton moved out uncompressed. * * * I was under the impression that that was Mr. Blanton's instructions to me of what Roy told me.

'Q. * * * State whether or not any concessions were made to Roy Blanton on cotton handled by the Sherman Compress for that season. A. Yes. sir.

'Q. What were those concessions. A. The handling and the storage charges were waived. * * *

'Q. Mr. Grafft, had you known that Roy Blanton did not have his father's permission to receive these concessions, state whether or not the concessions would have been granted. * * * A. I wouldn't have granted any concession without authority from someone that I was working for; Mr. Blanton or someone, else, some of the other officials.'

Grafft also testified that Roy Blanton, upon his father's instructions, had been granted similar concessions during the season of 1949-50, but that also upon the father's instructions the concessions had been withdrawn before the season was over; that no such reduction in tariff had ever been made without authority from L. O. Blanton, Sr.; that he did not think it was unusual for these concessions to be made to Roy Blanton, but that he thought it was just another instance of the same thing that had been done before-that L. O. Blanton, Sr., was reducing the charges to be made to his son; that during the months that followed, during the cotton season, Roy Blanton and his brother Don Blanton, an employee of Roy Blanton, repeatedly advised Grafft that he was not to charge storage on defendant's cotton; that after the season was over he learned that L. O. Blanton, Sr., had not authorized the lower charges for his son so in 1951 he had sent a bill to Roy Blanton for the difference, and that he had talked with Roy Blanton about the matter.

Again we quote from the testimony:

'Q. State what was said. A. Roy asked me what I told them-of course, referring to the Board of Directors, I assume-and I told Roy that I told them just what he had told me, that he had talked with his father and that I was to handle the cotton on the transit basis, that is, waive the handling of the (and the) storage.

'Q. And what did he say at that time? A. Roy told me at that time that his father had not told him just exactly what to do-for him to see me and that whatever arrangements he made with me would be satisfactory.

'Q. Prior to that time in July 1951, had he ever indicated to you in any way that he did not have his father's permission? A. No, sir.'

Undoubtedly the general rule, as plaintiff contends, is that fraud will not be presumed, Whitsel v. Hoover, Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 930 (wr.dis.); and that where facts are susceptible of contrary inferences, honesty and fair dealing rather than fraud and deceit will be preferred. Fletcher v. Ely, Tex.Civ.App., 53 S.W.2d 817 (wr.ref.); Hawkins v. Campbell, Tex.Civ.App., 226 S.W.2d 891 (wr.ref. N.R.E.).

However we believe the circumstances here call for the application of a different rule which has found support in respected authority. As said in 37 C.J.S., Fraud, § 17, p. 251: '* * * a representation literally true is actionable if used to create an impression substantially false'.

We find no Texas cases directly in point, but there are utterances from our courts which point in that direction. As was said in Ten-Cate v. First National Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 52 S.W.2d 323, 326, 'Fraud is deducible from artifice and concealment as well as from affirmative conduct of a character to deceive. In 25 Corpus Juris, p. 1066, under title of 'Fraud,' it is said: '* * * The plainest case of false representation is the telling of a deliberate and intentional lie. * * * But a representation need not be a direct lie in order to constitute remedial fraud; the false representation may consist in a deceptive answer, or any other indirect but misleading language.' See also 20 Tex.Jur. 158, 159.

In the California case of Sullivan v. Helbing, 66 Cal.App. 478, 226 P. 803, 805, defendants, to induce an exchange of real estate, expressly represented that the property was under present rental of $155 per month. It was admitted that the lease agreement did provide for such rental, and further that the rent was secured by chattel mortgage on certain machinery. These representations were true. But defendants failed to mention that the tenant had never paid any such sum, nor any sum greater than $135 per month, the difference in amounts having been rebated by defendants. The court held the facts constituted actionable fraud and allowed a recovery in damages. In so deciding, the court said: 'Fraudulent representations may consist of half-truths calculated to deceive.'

In the Colorado case of Cahill v. Readon, 85 Colo. 9, 273 P. 653, the defendant represented that there had been an oil boom which had subsided, and that values had become stabilized. This was literally true. But there was a catch in the statement; the value had been stabilized at zero, whereas the statement was made with the intent to convince plaintiff that it was stabilized at $100 per month. The court held that this was actionable fraud.

In Crompton v. Beedle, 83 Vt. 287, 75 A. 331, 334, 30 L.R.A.,N.S., 748, the court with approval quotes Lord Campbell in an English equity case: That not only a single word, but 'a nod or a wink or a shake of the head, or a smile from the purchaser, might defeat the application of the principle that mere reticence on the part of a purchaser does not in law amount to fraud.'

In the case at bar we think that the defendant's utterances taken together with all the surrounding circumstances shown in the record, raised a fact question, entitling plaintiff to a trial on the merits on the issue of fraud.

We are aware that in Texas intent is not ordinarily an essential element in fraud. But there are exceptions to the rule. '* * * the cases defining...