Continental Supply Co. v. Hoffman
| Decision Date | 06 November 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 2319-7526.,2319-7526. |
| Citation | 144 S.W.2d 253 |
| Parties | CONTINENTAL SUPPLY CO. v. HOFFMAN. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
This suit was instituted in the District Court of Eastland County. The plaintiff in the suit is the Continental Supply Company, a Delaware corporation. The defendants in the suit are C. H. Lockhart and P. L. Hoffman, both of whom reside in this State. The object of the suit is the recovery of judgment (1) against Lockhart for the purchase price of certain oil well casing sold to him by the Supply Company; (2) against both defendants for the foreclosure of a lien on the casing; (3) against Hoffman for conversion of the casing —he having purchased same from Lockhart in Loving County, Texas. Judgment by default was recovered against Lockhart. As between the Supply Company and Hoffman, the case was tried before the trial judge, without a jury. The trial resulted in a judgment against Hoffman. The latter appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in the respect that it was against Lockhart; but reversed same in the respect that it was against Hoffman, and remanded the cause. 120 S.W.2d 851. In the respect that its judgment reverses the trial court's judgment and remands the cause, the action of the Court of Civil Appeals is based exclusively on the fact the record contains no evidence to show that the Supply Company had a permit to do business in Texas. The Supply Company has been granted the writ of error.
The Supply Company contends that notwithstanding the record contains no evidence to show that the Company had a permit to do business in this State, the Court of Civil Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's judgment and remanding the cause, in the respects it did. This contention is grounded on the fact that the record contains uncontroverted evidence, which shows that the sale of the casing to Lockhart constituted an interstate transaction. The facts relevant to said contention are substantially as follows:
The petition of the Supply Company, upon which the case was tried, contains appropriate allegations for the recovery of the purchase price of the oil well casing which was sold by the Supply Company to Lockhart. Nothing appears in the petition to characterize said sale as an interstate transaction. Except by inference deducible...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leonard v. USA Petroleum Corp.
...business in interstate commerce. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8; Tex.Bus.Corp.Act Ann. art. 8.01(B)(9); see also Continental Supply Co. v. Hoffman, 135 Tex. 552, 144 S.W.2d 253 (1940); Killian v. Trans Union Leasing Corp., 657 S.W.2d 189, 192 (Tex. App. — San Antonio 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.). A fo......
-
Endeavor Energy Res., L.P. v. Heritage Consol., L.L.C. (In re Heritage Consol., L.L.C.)
...leases and to complete some drilling activities. 120 S.W.2d 851, 854 (Tex.Civ.App.–Eastland 1938), rev'd on other grounds,135 Tex. 552, 144 S.W.2d 253 (1940). Similarly, in Diversified Mortgage, Dollar Inns had executed a contract to purchase the Irving property from First Madison and paid ......
-
Hall v. Hard
...Statutes, Article 6573a, Section 19. See also Huff v. Kinloch Paint Co., Tex.Civ.App., 110 S.W. 467, wr. ref.; Continental Supply Co. v. Hoffman, 135 Tex. 522, 144 S.W.2d 253, 255. In this latter case, the court '* * * The fact that the sale to Lockhart constituted an intrastate transaction......
-
In re Semcrude, L.P., Case No. 08-11525 (BLS) (Jointly Administered) (Bankr.Del. 10/9/2009), Case No. 08-11525 (BLS) (Jointly Administered).
...1987) ("frac tanks" used to drill wells); Hoffman v. Cont'l Supply Co., 120 S.W.2d 851 (Tex. App. 1938), rev'd on other grounds, 144 S.W.2d 253 (Tex. App. 1940) (oil well casing and pipe); Keystone Pipe & Supply Co. v. Wright, 37 S.W.2d 227 (Tex. App. 1931) (oil well casing and pipe); Clayt......