From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sundance Oil v. Aztec Pipe and Supply Inc.

Supreme Court of Texas
Nov 15, 1978
576 S.W.2d 780 (Tex. 1978)

Summary

holding that multiple names on the invoice on which plaintiff relied resulted in a fact issue as to which company was actually indebted to the plaintiff

Summary of this case from Pilot Point Care, Inc. v. M Chest Institutional Pharm. Grp.

Opinion

No. B-7752.

November 15, 1978.

Appeal from the District Court, No. 133, Harris County, Pressler, J.

Byrnes, Myers, Adair, Campbell Sinex, Jay S. Siskind, Houston, for petitioner.

Sam E. Dunn and S.P. Dunn, Orange, for respondent.


Sundance Oil Company, the petitioner, brought suit upon a sworn account under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 185 for certain pipe and equipment it claims it sold to Aztec Pipe and Supply Company, Inc., the respondent. The respondent filed a general denial that normally would not be sufficient under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 185 to deny the account. The trial court granted petitioner's motion for summary judgment. The court of civil appeals reversed in Aztec Pipe and Supply Co. v. Sundance Oil Co., 568 S.W.2d 401 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston (1st Dist.) 1978), reasoning that the respondent was a stranger to the transaction and a sworn denial was not required.

The judgment of the court below is correct because the invoice or "joint interest statement" upon which the petitioner relies contains not only the name of Aztec Pipe and Supply Company, but also the name of another company, Dynamic Exploration, thus raising a fact question as to which company actually is indebted to the petitioner. There being a fact question as to whether the defendant was a party to the transaction evident from the face of the plaintiff's own invoices, the sworn account is not considered as prima facie proof of the debt. Therefore, a sworn denial is not required in order for the respondent to controvert or disprove the account. Eng v. Wheeler, 302 S.W.2d 70 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio 1957, writ dism'd); and Boysen v. Security Lumber, Inc., 531 S.W.2d 454 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston (14th Dist.) 1975, no writ). The petitioner's application for writ of error must be refused, no reversible error.


Summaries of

Sundance Oil v. Aztec Pipe and Supply Inc.

Supreme Court of Texas
Nov 15, 1978
576 S.W.2d 780 (Tex. 1978)

holding that multiple names on the invoice on which plaintiff relied resulted in a fact issue as to which company was actually indebted to the plaintiff

Summary of this case from Pilot Point Care, Inc. v. M Chest Institutional Pharm. Grp.

In Sundance Oil Co., the Supreme Court found that a fact question was raised because the movant's invoice, which was a "joint interest statement," contained not only the name of the nonmovant, but also the name of another company.

Summary of this case from Enernational v. Exploitation
Case details for

Sundance Oil v. Aztec Pipe and Supply Inc.

Case Details

Full title:SUNDANCE OIL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. AZTEC PIPE AND SUPPLY COMPANY, INC.…

Court:Supreme Court of Texas

Date published: Nov 15, 1978

Citations

576 S.W.2d 780 (Tex. 1978)

Citing Cases

Tandan v. Affordable Power, L.P.

However, a defendant who is a “stranger to the transaction” does not need to submit a verified denial.…

Wordworks, Inc. v. Dallas County State Bank

That language means only that the court considered all affidavits properly on file at the time of the summary…