Shannon v. Bridgeport Brick Co.

283 S.W. 182
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 20, 1926
DocketNo. 11411.
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 283 S.W. 182 (Shannon v. Bridgeport Brick Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Shannon v. Bridgeport Brick Co., 283 S.W. 182 (Tex. Ct. App. 1926).

Opinion

BUCK, J.

The Bridgeport Brick Company, hereinafter called plaintiff or appellee, filed suit in the district court of Wise county against M. B. Shannon, hereinafter called defendant or appellant, alleging that on or about February 4, 1924, plaintiff was engaged in the business of manufacturing brick and tile to be used for building purposes; that all of the necessary machinery in said plant was operated by steam power from a boiler equipped with an oil burner; that it was necessary to have fuel oil that would give a uniform and high degree of heat, in order to burn the bricks in the kiln; that a discontinuance of heat under said boiler caused damage to and loss of the brick in the kiln; that on said February 4th plaintiff entered into a written contract with the defendant, whereby defendant bound himself to deliver to plaintiff at Bridgeport one certain car of fuel oil to be used by plaintiff in furnishing fuel to said boiler and to furnish heat to said drying process and burning kilns in which said brick and tile were burned; that said defendant knew at the time of the purchase that said oil was purchased for said purposes and was familiar with the grade and character of oil that was necessary tobe used for said purposes and knew that the business of the plaintiff required an oil that would burn and make an intense and continuous heat under said boiler ; that, when the. oil was delivered at Bridgeport and attempted to be used, it proved to be of an inferior grade and quality, and to be entirely worthless and unfit for the purpose of heating the boiler, and that it would not burn and give a continuous and necessary heat required for burning the brick in the kiln; that, by the attempted use of said oil so furnished, plaintiff was damaged in the loss of a large number of the brick, etc.; that the defendant was a man of large experience in the use and handling of fuel oil in brick plants to furnish steam heat for drying and burning brick; that plaintiff had no knowledge of the inferior quality of said oil so furnished until it had started its machinery and started the drying and burning process of 700,000 brick, but that it relied upon said defendant to ship and furnish it with a fuel that was competent of furnishing a proper’ heat for steam and for burning and drying of said brick.

The defendant filed its plea of privilege to be sued in Dallas county, the county of his residence. In plaintiff’s controverting affidavit to said plea it set up the facts contained in its petition, and heretofore set out, and further pleaded that defendant was familiar with the business in which plaintiff was engaged and knew the kind of oil needed and that plaintiff purchased and defendant agreed in writing to furnish and deliver said kind of oil to plaintiff, but did in fact deliver to it a grade and character of fuel oil that was wholly worthless. The plea of privilege was overruled and the defendant has appealed.

The evidence shows that plaintiff’s vice president and general manager, J. F. Lillard, ordered fuel oil from defendant over the long-distance telephone; that defendant sent him the following confirmation of sale and purchase:

“M. B. Shannon, Fuel Service,
“131© Magnolia Building.
“No. 0-1634.
“Dallas, Texas, February 4, 1924.
“Confirmation of Sale to Bridgeport Brick Co., Bridgeport, Texas.
“Ship to Bridgeport Brick Co. Destination, Bridgeport, Texas. Routing: — —. Shipment as below.
“Terms: Cash net, f. o. b. Brigeport, Texas.
2 cars to be shipped this week.
2 cars to be shipped week of Feb. 14th.
2 cars to be shipped week of Feb. 18th.
“This confirms phone order Mr. Lillard to Mr. Shannon to-day. Many thanks.
“M. B. Shannon,
“By K--.
“Accepted:
“-:-, by-.
“All contracts are contingent upon delays, strikes, or any other unavoidable conditions beyond our control. Where sight draft terms are specified, failure to pay draft when presented shall make all obligations hereunder due and payable at Dallas, Texas; also, where payment other than sight draft is specified, the same shall.be due and payable at Dallas, Texas.’’

There was introduced in evidence the following invoice:

“Fuel Oil. M. B. Shannon, Invoice No. 2800.
“Gas Oil.

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

Related

Hicks Rubber Co. v. Port Iron & Supply Co.
252 S.W.2d 987 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1952)
Wood Motor Co. v. Hawkins
226 S.W.2d 487 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1949)
Farmers' Seed & Gin Co. v. Brooks
85 S.W.2d 1096 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
283 S.W. 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shannon-v-bridgeport-brick-co-texapp-1926.