Ford Motor Co. v. Lemieux Lumber Co., 6912
| Decision Date | 07 September 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 6912,6912 |
| Citation | 418 S.W.2d 909 |
| Parties | FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. LEMIEUX LUMBER COMPANY, Inc., Appellee. . Beaumont |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Baker, Botts, Shepherd & Coates, Houston, for appellants.
J. C. Zbranek, Liberty, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order overruling the plea of privilege of the defendant, Ford Motor Company. This is an action for breach of both an implied warranty in law and an express warranty in writing, that a Ford truck was suitable for the purpose for which it was sold. The parties will be referred to here as they were in the trial court.
Plaintiff alleged that defendant, N. A. Walker, was an individual engaged in the sale of Ford automobiles and trucks in Liberty County, Texas, and resided in Liberty County, Texas. Plaintiff also alleged that defendant, Ford Motor Company, was a foreign corporation doing business in the State of Texas, with an agent for service in Harris County, Texas.
Defendant, Ford Motor Company, filed its plea of privilege asking that the case be transferred to Harris County, Texas. Plaintiff filed its controverting affidavit, relying upon subdivisions 4, 23, 27 and 29a of Article 1995, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St., to maintain venue in Liberty County, Texas. Hearing was before the court and judgment rendered overruling such plea of privilege. In its brief, plaintiff contends only that venue was sustainable under sections 4 and 27, and we conclude the trial court's ruling is correct on both of these grounds.
Section 4 provides in part that if two or more defendants reside in different counties, suit may be brought in any county where one of the defendants resides. N. A. Walker is one of the defendants, and the undisputed evidence shows that he was a resident of Liberty County, where this suit was brought. The evidence also shows: That plaintiff bought a new Ford pick-up truck with four wheel drive from defendant Walker in Cleveland, Texas. That defendant Walker was the authorized dealer for defendant, Ford Motor Company, at the time of such purchase, and obtained such product from defendant, Ford Motor Company. That plaintiff had a contract to cut fifteen million feet of timber from International Paper Company land located in the Devers big thicket or swamps. That defendant, Walker, knew the purpose for which plaintiff was buying the truck in question, and that it was intended to be used to operate in muddy, rough, wet terrain to haul fuel and so forth to the plaintiff's equipment in the woods. That the needs for this truck were discussed by defendant Walker with Jesse H. Williams, president of plaintiff corporation, who negotiated for and concluded the purchase of this truck. That defendant, Ford Motor Company, furnished defendant, Walker, brochures, depicting in pictures and words the products offered for sale, which were distributed by defendant, Walker. That Williams...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Miles
...Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co. v. Coplin, 445 S.W.2d 627, 628-29 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1969, no writ); see also Ford Motor Co. v. Lemieux Lumber Co., 418 S.W.2d 909, 910 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1967, no writ) (holding that venue was proper as to Ford under article 1995(27) in a county in which ......
-
People ex rel. R.C.
...by signs and pictures ....’ ") (emphasis added). As well, tort law gives effect to pictures. See, e.g. , Ford Motor Co. v. Lemieux Lumber Co. , 418 S.W.2d 909 (Tex. Civ. App. 1967) (holding that sales brochure with pictures of truck capable of crossing streams and ditches and climbing mount......
-
Cova v. Harley Davidson Motor Co.
...even though there was no privity of contract, in some cases on contract, in others on tort theories. See Ford Motor Co. v. Lemieux Lumber Co. (Tex.Civ.App., 1967), 418 S.W.2d 909 (express warranty because of mass advertising); Thomas v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation (1967), 255 Cal.Ap......
-
Nobility Homes of Texas, Inc. v. Shivers
...Texas, Inc. v. Asel, supra. The one court of civil appeals decision which has not required privity in such an action is Ford Motor Co. v. Lemieux Co., 418 S.W.2d 909 (Tex.Civ.App.1967, no writ).Foreign cases retaining the privity requirement in implied warranty actions for economic loss inc......