Santos v. Mid-Continent Refrigerator Company

Texas Supreme Court

Santos v. Mid-Continent Refrigerator Company

471 S.W.2d 568, 15 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 10, 1971 Tex. LEXIS 237

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 6, 1971

DocketB-2838

StatusPublished

Cited by42 cases

This text of 471 S.W.2d 568 (Santos v. Mid-Continent Refrigerator Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Santos v. Mid-Continent Refrigerator Company, 471 S.W.2d 568, 15 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 10, 1971 Tex. LEXIS 237 (Tex. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Mid-Continent Refrigerator Company brought this suit for damages as a result of defendant Santiago Santos’ default of a contract by which refrigeration equipment was leased to Santos. A summary judgment was entered for Refrigerator Company. The court of civil appeals affirmed, but its opinion states that Santos resisted the motion for summary judgment with an affidavit setting forth a fraudulent misrepresentation by Refrigerator Company’s agent as to a particular provision of the contract between them. 469 S.W.2d 24, 25. The court then holds that evidence of the agreement contrary to the writing would have no effect because of the parol evidence rule.

The parol evidence rule will not prevent proof of fraud or mütual mistake. However, Santos presented no affidavit which raised this issue. The quotation in the opinion of the court of civil appeals is taken from an unverified pleading. Fraud or mutual mistake are affirmative defenses and must be raised by proper summary judgment proof by the one resisting the summary judgment. Gulf, Colorado & Sante Fe Ry. Co. v. McBride, 159 Tex. 442, 322 S.W.2d 492 (1958).

The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Mid-Continent Refrigerator Company brought this suit for damages as a result of defendant Santiago Santos’ default of a contract by which refrigeration equipment was leased to Santos. A summary judgment was entered for Refrigerator Company. The court of civil appeals affirmed, but its opinion states that Santos resisted the motion for summary judgment with an affidavit setting forth a fraudulent misrepresentation by Refrigerator Company’s agent as to a particular provision of the contract between them. 469 S.W.2d 24, 25. The court then holds that evidence of the agreement contrary to the writing would have no effect because of the parol evidence rule.

The parol evidence rule will not prevent proof of fraud or mütual mistake. However, Santos presented no affidavit which raised this issue. The quotation in the opinion of the court of civil appeals is taken from an unverified pleading. Fraud or mutual mistake are affirmative defenses and must be raised by proper summary judgment proof by the one resisting the summary judgment. Gulf, Colorado & Sante Fe Ry. Co. v. McBride, 159 Tex. 442, 322 S.W.2d 492 (1958).

The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

471 S.W.2d 568, 15 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 10, 1971 Tex. LEXIS 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santos-v-mid-continent-refrigerator-company-tex-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack