Cunningham v. Frontier Lumber Co.
| Decision Date | 15 November 1922 |
| Docket Number | (No. 6816.) |
| Citation | 245 S.W. 270 |
| Parties | CUNNINGHAM v. FRONTIER LUMBER CO. et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Cameron County; W. B. Hopkins, Judge.
Action by A. W. Cunningham against the Frontier Lumber Company and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Wm. S. West, of Brownsville, and Duval West, Jr., of Harlingen, for appellant.
Kibbe & Perkins and Graham, Jones, Williams & Ransome, all of Brownsville, for appellees.
On November 30, 1920, appellant filed a suit for damages against Frontier Lumber Company and Bird & Son, representing that during the summer of 1918 he was building a residence, and upon the representations of appellees that a certain kind of roofing material known as "Twin Shingle Roofing" was first-class, would turn water and last for years, and would give entire satisfaction, and upon agreement that appellees would warrant the roof for 10 years to give satisfaction, appellant was induced to use the roofing; that the house was completed on November 20, 1918, and was soon thereafter occupied by appellant and family; that at that time the roof seemed to be all right, and no defects were apparent; that during the month of December, 1918, rain came, and went through the roof in several places, and at each subsequent rain more and larger leaks were developed, until it became apparent that the roof was totally defective. Appellant alleged that he tried to stop the leaks, and, failing to do so, notified appellee Frontier Lumber Company, and in June, 1919, appellant was forced to place a new roof on his house, for which said appellee assured appellant he would be reimbursed, but said appellee has failed and refused to make said reimbursement. Damages in the sum of $1,024.55 were sought. On March 15, 1921, appellant filed an amended petition, in which the allegations were made as in the original petition with some amplifications, and it was further alleged that in September, 1920, a representative of appellees sought an adjustment of appellant's claim, and made an offer of $390 for the damages, which was declined by appellant, and he prayed for $1,300 damages. On January 23, 1922, a second amended petition was filed, in which the essential allegations of the first petition were made in a more accurate manner as to substance and detail. The cause was, in all practical and substantial matters, the same as was pleaded in the original...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weeks v. Slavick Builders, Inc.
...and the court intimated that this did not necessarily mean the date that the roof first began to leak, Cunningham v. Frontier Lumber Co. (Tex.Civ.App.1922), 245 S.W. 270. We therefore find that the Appellees commenced their action within a reasonable time after it was determined that repair......
-
K/F Development & Inv. Corp. v. Williamson Crane & Dozer Corp.
...roof began to leak, and this was more than four years prior to the filing of the law suit. Plaintiff relies on Cunningham v. Frontier Lumber Co., 245 S.W. 270 (Tex.App.1922) for the proposition that repairs may toll a statute of limitation. This is an old case and the weight of authority an......
-
Cartmell v. Slavik Co.
...a jury. I would reverse the trial and circuit court decisions and order judgment entered for defendant. 1 Cf. Cunningham v. Frontier Lumber Co., 245 S.W. 270 (Tex.Civ.App. 1922).The warranty in the case at bar is not against leaks; it is against 'leaks due to failure of tile or its installa......
- Genitempo v. Anderson