Genico Distributors, Inc. v. First Nat. Bank of Richardson, 8866

Citation616 S.W.2d 418
Decision Date05 May 1981
Docket NumberNo. 8866,8866
PartiesGENICO DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Appellant, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF RICHARDSON, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

John Feather, Hubbard, Thurman, Turner, Tucker & Glaser, Dallas, for appellant.

Jack E. Brady, Law Offices of Jack E. Brady, P. C., Dallas, for appellee.

HUTCHINSON, Justice.

Appellant, Genico Distributors, Inc. (Genico), brought this suit against appellee, First National Bank of Richardson (Bank), seeking treble damages and attorney fees under the Deceptive Trace Practices-Consumer Protection Act, Tex.Bus. & Comm.Code Ann. § 17.41, et seq. (DTPA). Trial was to a jury and upon the jury verdict the court entered a judgment that Genico take nothing and that the Bank recover attorney fees in the sum of $3,500.00 for services rendered through the trial court and additional sums in the event of appeals to a Court of Civil Appeals and the Supreme Court of Texas.

Genico employed H. E. Beaver in early 1977 to operate one of its service stations and instructed him to accept only cash from its customers and to deposit the cash in its account with the Bank. Mr. Beaver had previously operated the station as a commissioned dealer and had maintained his business account at the Bank. On September 14, 1977, Mr. Beaver presented to a teller at the Bank three deposit slips that he had prepared, dated September 10, September 11 and September 12, entering on each a dollar amount on the line marked "Currency" and an amount in cents on the line marked "Coin." However, instead of cash, he presented three checks drawn upon his old account in the sums of $1,599.28, $1,239.24 and $930.27, for a total of $3,768.79. The teller for the Bank placed a bank stamp on each of the deposit slips and gave copies to Mr. Beaver and sent copies with the bank statement to Genico. On the following day, September 15, 1977, it was determined that the three checks were drawn on insufficient finds and each were charged back against Genico's account. A notice of the chargebacks was prepared and sent to Genico along with the three checks that had been deposited by Mr. Beaver, each bearing a notation that it was returned by reason of insufficient funds.

By its first two points of error Genico asserts that the trial court erred by failing to grant its motion for an instructed verdict based upon the Bank's issuance, validation, and knowing failure to correct the false deposit slips and because of the jury's failure to find that the Bank falsely represented that it had deposited currency and coin by its issuance of the three deposit slips. The Bank responds to these points by stating that Genico was not a "consumer" under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and that the jury's failure to find that the Bank falsely represented the deposits was proper under the presented evidence.

The cause of action conferred by the Deceptive Trade Practices Act is restricted to the class of claimants defined as "consumer" within the meaning of § 17.45(4) and to "services" as defined in § 17.45(2). Rutherford v. Whataburger, Inc., 601 S.W.2d 441 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1980, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Exxon Corporation v. Dunn, 581 S.W.2d 500 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1979, no writ); Russell v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, 548 S.W.2d 737 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1977, writ ref'd n. r. e.). In the instant case, the trial court was correct in determining that Genico in the transaction complained of did not seek or acquire "by purchase or lease, any goods or services" and therefore was not a "consumer" under the Act. Riverside National Bank v. Lewis, 603 S.W.2d 169 (Tex.1980); Thompson v. First Austin Company, 572 S.W.2d 80 (Tex.Civ.App. Fort Worth 1978, writ ref'd n. r. e.). The making and acceptance of ordinary deposit brought into existence the relation of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Shenandoah Associates v. J & K Properties, Inc.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 31, 1987
    ...Southern, 619 S.W.2d 557, 560 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1981, writ ref'd n.r. e.); Genico Distributors, Inc. v. First National Bank, 616 S.W.2d 418, 420 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.). However, in Leissner v. Schott, 668 S.W.2d 686 (Tex.1984) a case arising after the 197......
  • Fichtner v. Richardson
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • January 22, 1986
    ...Inc. v. West, 627 S.W.2d 759, 761 (Tex.App.--Tyler 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Genico Distributors, Inc. v. First National Bank of Richardson, 616 S.W.2d 418, 420 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.); O'Shea v. IBM, 578 S.W.2d 844, 848 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1979, writ re......
  • Vick v. George
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • July 20, 1983
    ...619 S.W.2d 557, 560-61 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Genico Distributors, Inc. v. First National Bank, 616 S.W.2d 418, 420 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.); O'Shea v. International Business Machines Corp., 578 S.W.2d 844, 848 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [1......
  • Xarin Real Estate, Inc. v. Gamboa
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • June 26, 1986
    ...v. Southern, 619 S.W.2d 557 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Genico Distributors, Inc. v. First National Bank, 616 S.W.2d 418 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.); O'Shea v. International Business Machines Corp., 578 S.W.2d 844 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [1st Di......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT