Dallas Farm Machinery Co. v. Reaves
| Decision Date | 22 February 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 15789,15789 |
| Citation | 300 S.W.2d 180 |
| Parties | DALLAS FARM MACHINERY COMPANY, Appellant, v. Ben REAVES, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Wilbur T. Knape, Dallas, for appellant.
Cantey, Hanger, Johnson, Scarborough & Gooch, Carlisle Cravens and Ed Reichelt, Fort Worth, for appellee.
Plaintiffs, Dallas Farm Machinery Company, a partnership composed of L. D. Beckham and G. H. Kincaid, Jr., sued defendant Reaves for the balance allegedly due under a written contract, wherein defendant agreed to purchase an Oliver OC-3 crawler tractor and Oliver-Ware 3W-I loader from plaintiffs. Defendant filed an answer and a cross-action replet with allegations of false representations concerning material matters made knowlingly to defendant by plaintiff Kincaid, which false representations were relied upon by defendant and induced him to execute the contract.
A non-jury trial resulted in a judgment denying recovery to plaintiffs. The judgment canceled and rescinded the contract and awarded defendant the reasonable market value of a tractor and equipment he had traded plaintiffs as part of the purchase price of the Oliver equipment.
The findings of fact are voluminous and detailed. In brief summary, they show: The contract was executed on May 21, 1954. Just prior thereto defendant fully informed plaintiffs of the nature of his business, that is, loading gravel trucks with sand, gravel and other materials. Defendant was then using Ford equipment but wanted new equipment that would do a better and faster job. Kincaid knew of the capabilities and ability of the Oliver tractor and pertinent equipment; defendant did not. Kincaid, after full notice of intended use by defendant, represented to defendant that the Oliver equipment would do a better and faster job than defendant's Ford equipment, and would do the work of the two Ford tractors and loaders defendant was then using. The representations were false and known by plaintiffs to be false. The Oliver equipment would not load as fast as defendant's Ford equipment and could not be used commercially in defendant's business because of its size and design. The false representations were justifiably relied upon by defendant and induced the execution of the contract, and but for such misrepresentations defendant would not have executed the contract. After forty-five minutes' trial, defendant notified plaintiffs the equipment could not be used in his business and was worthless to him; that the representations made to him were not true. After some modification, the defendant, assisted by representatives of plaintiffs, again attempted to load standard type gravel trucks but was unable to do so in a way in which defendant could conduct his business. Defendant promptly tendered the Oliver equipment back to plaintiffs and demanded return of the Ford trade-in. The Oliver tractor and equipment were not suitable for use by defendant in his work and were useless and worthless to him. Defendants did not derive any benefit from the Oliver equipment while it was in his possession.
Plaintiffs' first group of points assails the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law as being without support in the evidence and contrary to and against the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence.
The statement of facts consists of 452 pages of sharply controverting testimony. Kincaid denied making any representations concerning the Oliver tractor and equipment. He testified the tractor and loader worked perfectly. Three other witnesses called by plaintiffs testified the equipment worked successfully in loading gravel trucks.
On the contrary, defendant and another witness testified at length as to representations made by Kincaid. Defendant and five witnesses called by him testified the Oliver equipment would not successfully load standard type gravel trucks.
The trial court chose to accept as true the testimony offered by defendant, both as to representations of Kincaid and as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dallas Farm Machinery Company v. Reaves
...and conclusions of law in support of the judgment were filed by the trial judge. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 300 S.W.2d 180. A completed printed 'Customer's Order For Oliver Equipment' form constitutes the written contract between the parties. It contains the fo......
-
Partners v. the Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.
...a way that damages are foreclosed.”). FN1. Ante at 331. 2. 158 Tex. 1, 307 S.W.2d 233 (1957). FN3. Dallas Farm Mach. Co. v. Reaves, 300 S.W.2d 180, 181 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1957), aff'd, 158 Tex. 1, 307 S.W.2d 233 (1957). 4. 300 S.W.2d at 181. FN5. Id. 6. 307 S.W.2d at 234. FN7. Id. at ......
-
Partners v. The Prudential Ins. Co. of America
...some representations — or it meant nothing at all. The principal authority on which the Court relies is our 1957 decision in Dallas Farm Machinery Co. v. Reaves,2 so its facts are worth recounting. Reaves traded in his two Ford tractors and loaders for a new oliver tractor and loader on the......
-
Partners v. The Prudential Ins. Co. Of Am.
...some representations — or it meant nothing at all. The principal authority on which the Court relies is our 1957 decision in Dallas Farm Machinery Co. v. Reaves, 2 so its facts are worth recounting. Reaves traded in his two Ford tractors and loaders for a new Oliver tractor and loader on th......