Duty v. General Finance Co., A-4645
| Decision Date | 03 November 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. A-4645,A-4645 |
| Citation | 273 S.W.2d 64,154 Tex. 16 |
| Parties | David E. DUTY et ux., Petitioners, v. GENERAL FINANCE COMPANY et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Edward C. Freitz, Dallas, for petitioners.
H. B. Houston, Ed C. Stearns, Z. E. Coombes and Mays & Lea, Dallas, for respondents.
The controlling question in this case is the right of borrowers to recover damages for mental anguish and physical injuries wilfully and wantonly inflicted on them by wrongful devices practiced by lenders for the purpose of collecting claimed balances due them on notes given by the Borrowers. Another injury alleged was the loss of employment by Mrs. Duty. Without detailing the proceedings below, it is sufficient for the purposes of this opinion to state that the trial court held that petitioners' petition stated no cause of action for damages, and that the case was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals in a majority opinion.
In their petition petitioners, as plaintiffs in the trial court, alleged that various defendants acting in conspiracy and individually conducted a course of harassment and excessive and wrongful collection efforts against them from the first time they missed a payment on any of their loan transactions until after they had filed this suit. The harassments alleged may be summarized as follows: Daily telephone calls to both Mr. And Mrs. Duty, which extended to great length; threatening to blacklist them with the Merchants' Retail Credit Association; accusing them of being deadbeats; talking to them in a harsh, insinuating, loud voice; stating to their neighbors and employers that they were deadbeats; asking Mrs. Duty what she was doing with her money; accusing her of spending money in other ways than in payments on the loan transaction; threatening to cause both plaintiffs to lose their jobs unless they made the payments demanded; calling each of the plaintiffs at the respective places of their employment several times daily; threatening to garnishee their wages; berating plaintiffs to their fellow employees; requesting their employers to require them to pay; calling on them at their work; flooding them with a barrage of demand letters, dun cards, special delivery letters, and telegrams both at their homes and their places of work; sending them cards bearing this opening statement: 'Dear Customer: We made you a loan because we thought that you were honest.'; sending telegrams and special delivery letters to them at approximately midnight, causing them to be awakened from their sleep; calling a neighbor in the disguise of a sick brother of one of the plaintiffs, and on another occasion as a stepson; calling Mr. Duty's mother at her place of employment in Wichita Falls long distance, collect; leaving red cards in their door, with insulting notes on the back and thinly-veiled threats; calling Mr. Duty's brother long distance, collect, in Abuquerque, New Mexico, at his residence at a cost to him in excess of $11, and haranguing him about the alleged balance owed by plaintiffs.
It was further alleged that all of the above acts were wilful and were committed with knowledge that they could cause plaintiffs mental injury, would render them less capable of performing their work, and would cause them to suffer physical illness.
It was alleged that the foregoing course of conduct caused the plaintiffs to suffer, among others, the following injuries: Both plaintiffs developed a state of high...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jarchow v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co.
...nervous indigestion and loss of sleep as 'physical injuries' which fulfill the reguirements of this rule. (Duty v. General Finance Company, 154 Tex. 16, 273 S.W.2d 64; see also Rest.2d Torts, § 436A, com.)8 It should be noted that a number of states specifically have rejected the 'impact or......
-
Chrysler Corp. v. Fedders Corp.
..."after it became obvious that execution of the writ would completely halt plaintiff's business operation."); Duty v. General Fin. Co., 154 Tex. 16, 273 S.W.2d 64 (1954) (plaintiff stated a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress without actual physical injuries); La......
-
Lyons v. Zale Jewelry Co., 42382
...v. May (1932), 159 Va. 419, 166 S.E. 550; Kirby v. Jules Chain Stores Corp. (1936), 210 N.C. 808, 188 S.E. 625; Duty v. General Finance Co. (1954), 154 Tex. 16, 273 S.W.2d 64; Kaufman v. Western Union Tel. Co. (1955, C.A. 5 Tex.), 224 F.2d 723, cert. den. 350 U.S. 947, 76 S.Ct. 321, 100 L.E......
-
Boyles v. Kerr
...in Tidelands Automobile Club v. Walters, 699 S.W.2d 939 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (relying on Duty v. General Finance Co., 154 Tex. 16, 273 S.W.2d 64 (1954)). Therefore, contrary to Justice Doggett's suggestion in his dissent, these two causes of action were established i......