Eastman v. Tiger Vehicle Co.

• Decision Date: 21 April 1917
• Docket Number: (No. 7789.)
• Citation: 195 S.W. 336
• Parties: EASTMAN et al. v. TIGER VEHICLE CO.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

195 S.W. 336

EASTMAN et al. v. TIGER VEHICLE CO.

(No. 7789.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

April 21, 1917.

Rehearing Denied May 26, 1917.

Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; E. B. Meese, Judge.

Action by the Tiger Vehicle Company against Charles Eastman and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Ross M. Scott and W. D. Cardwell, both of Dallas, for appellants. C. M. Smithdeal and E. B. Stroud, Jr., both of Dallas, for appellee.

RASBURY, J.

Appellee, a private corporation, secured verdict and judgment in the court below against appellants for $1,097.39, with interest and costs. The sole issue on appeal is the right of appellee to maintain the suit. Appellee's contention is that the transactions between the parties forming the basis of its suit were interstate commerce. Appellants' contention is that such transactions were intrastate commerce, and, it appearing from the record that appellee had not secured the permit from the state authorities required by article 1314, Rev. Stats. 1911, it was not entitled under succeeding article 1318 to maintain the suit.

The facts disclosed by the record bearing on the issue so raised are without dispute, and are in substance these: Appellants, who are Charles Eastman and B. T. Sneed, and appellee, an Illinois corporation, on August 4, 1914, entered into a contract in writing by which appellee employed appellants to solicit orders for and sell its vehicles in the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas. Upon all vehicles shipped upon orders secured by appellants, appellee agreed to pay them as compensation 7 per cent. of the invoice price thereof. Any money advanced appellants by appellee for expenses or otherwise was to be repaid, and could be deducted from any commissions or other money due appellants. Either party could terminate the agreement by giving to the other 30 days' written notice thereof. While it is of no controlling force, it is proper to say that appellee advanced appellants $675 under the contract, and that appellee solicited orders from merchants in the state, securing but two, however, one only being approved. While appellants were in Freeport, Ill., presumably reaching an agreement with appellee, it was agreed between them that appellee would ship a car of its vehicles to Dallas for exhibition at the Texas State Fair, appellee to pay all legitimate expenses in that connection, such as floor space, display building, signs, etc. Appellants were to exhibit and sell the vehicles under the terms of the contract, accounting to appellee for the invoice price, plus the freight to Dallas, which was prepaid by appellee. The car of vehicles was shipped and received and placed on exhibition by appellants. The advertising matter at the exhibition arranged by appellants was in the name of Tiger Vehicle Company, Eastman & Sneed agents. Several of the vehicles were sold during the fair, but not delivered until the expiration thereof. Before the fair closed appellee suspended business, of which appellants were notified, and the contract terminated by the notice required thereby. The appellants disposed of all but five of the buggies, which were sequestrated in this suit, and appropriated the proceeds. The invoice price of the buggies, plus the freight and money advanced, less certain credits for expenses and commissions, constitute the verdict and judgment. Appellee did not secure the permit to transact business in Texas required by article 1314, supra.

We conclude this case should be affirmed upon the authority of Miller & Co. v. Goodman, 91 Tex. 41, 40 S. W. 718; Allen v. Tyson-Jones Buggy Co., 91 Tex. 22, 40 S. W. 393; Lasater v. Purcell Mill & Elevator Co., 22 Tex. Civ. App. 33, 54 S. W. 425. In those cases it is declared that a foreign corporation may sue in this state for the price of goods manufactured by it in another state, and sold through its agents in Texas, without complying with article 1314, supra, on the ground...