From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Manly v. CR Minerals Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District, Waco
Jan 26, 2005
No. 10-03-00114-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 26, 2005)

Opinion

No. 10-03-00114-CV

Opinion delivered and filed January 26, 2005.

Appeal from the 74th District Court, McLennan County, Texas, Trial Court # 2000-2726-3.

Reversed and rendered.

Stephen R. Fontaine, Stephen R. Fontaine, P.C., Waco, TX, for Appellant/Relator.

Anthony E. Silas, Robertson, Robertson Silas, L.L.P., Clinton, TX, for Appellee/Respondent.

Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and Justice REYNA.


MEMORANDUM Opinion


This is an appeal of a suit on a sworn account. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 185. Because there is no evidence that Manly was acting in any capacity other than as an employee in the purchase of the products from CR Minerals, we reverse and render.

In Manly's second issue, he contends that the evidence was legally insufficient. The trial court rendered judgment against Manly, individually, and doing business as Agri-Safe. Manly pleaded that he was a stranger to the transaction, and put on evidence to that effect. See Weaver v. King Ready Mix Concrete, Inc., 750 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tex.App.-Waco 1988, no writ). Manly put on evidence that Agri-Safe was a marketing division of EPA Distributors, a corporation owned by his father, by which Manly was employed and in which he owned no interest. Manly testified that he had never done business as Agri-Safe, did not purchase goods from Appellee individually, and did not agree to be responsible for the purchases. CR Minerals introduced evidence that Manly had signed a license application on behalf of Agri-Safe in which he affirmed that he was "authorized and empowered to act for the operation for whom the license application is made." CR Minerals also points to Manly's testimony that he placed the orders for the goods. But as CR Minerals' brief notes, its invoices that form the basis of its sworn account name Agri-Safe as the purchaser. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's implied finding that Manly was a party to the transaction, and disregarding disputed evidence to the contrary except for undisputed evidence, there is no evidence that Manly was a party to the transaction. See St. Joseph Hosp. v. Wolff, 94 S.W.3d 513, 519-20 (Tex. 2003); Tiller v. McLure, 121 S.W.3d 709, 713 (Tex. 2003); Weaver at 914. We sustain Manly's second issue. We reverse and render judgment that CR Minerals take nothing from Manly, individually, and doing business as Agri-Safe. We do not reach Manly's other issues.


Summaries of

Manly v. CR Minerals Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District, Waco
Jan 26, 2005
No. 10-03-00114-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 26, 2005)
Case details for

Manly v. CR Minerals Co.

Case Details

Full title:MARK MANLY, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A AGRI-SAFE, Appellant v. CR MINERALS…

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District, Waco

Date published: Jan 26, 2005

Citations

No. 10-03-00114-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 26, 2005)