NO. 07-07 -014 7-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A APR IL 30 , 200 8

_________

_________

_________

___ W OODROW NELSON & SON, INC., AP PEL LANT V. ED W RIGHT CATT LE COMPANY, INC., DARW IN MANNING AN D DA RW IN M AN NI NG C ATTLE CO MP AN Y , I NC ., APPEL LEES

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 24 2 ND DI ST RI CT COU RT OF CA ST RO COU NT Y; NO . B8 355- 0502; HO NO RA BLE E D SELF , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON App ellant , W ood row

Nelson & S o n , Inc. (Nelson ), appe als f rom th e trial court’s g ra nti ng of a s ummary

j udg ment i n fav or

of appel lee s, Ed W ri g ht Cattl e C o., Inc . ( W ri g ht) and D ar w in Ma nni ng and Dar

w in Ma nni ng C attl e C o., Inc . ( Ma nni ng ). W e w il l aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.2 Factual and Procedu ra l Back g ro und In J anuar

y 2005, N els on sold 280 head of c attl e i n two l ots
. The cattl e i n eac h l ot w ere s ol d to R ob B rad l ey . Th e fi rs t l otw as del i v ered on Ja nu ar y 14, 200 5, at w hi c h ti me Bradl ey del iv ered hi s c heck

to Nel so n i n the amount of $114,421. 30. The sec ond l ot of cattl e w as del iv ered to Bradl ey by N els on on Janua ry

22, 2005, a n d a gai n , Bradl ey del iv ered his chec k to Nel son in the amount of $1 15,464. 43. At no tim e di d Bra dle y re p re s e n tt o N e l s o n t h a t h e , B ra d l e y , w a s a c t i n g o n b e h a l f o f a n y o n e o t h e r t h a n h i ms e l f. T here is no disput e tha t the amo untof eithe r check is incorre c t
. B ra d le y subse quently pass ed aw ay

on J anuar

y 23, 2005, before e it her ch eck w as depos it ed i n the N els on’ s b ank accou nt. W hen the che cks w ere prese nte d for paymen t bot h w ere ref used as there w ere ins uff ic ien t funds in Bradl ey ’s acc ount to pay the chec ks

. Ul ti matel y , Nel son filed a s uitto col lect t he amountof the c hecks. I t i s u ndi sput ed that Bradl ey or his est ate w as pai d for the c attl e. Or ig ina ll y

N els on sued the est ate of Rober t Bradl ey and Ed W ri g ht, ind iv idu all y , but subse quently took a no n-suit against b oth . Nelson claims th at th e de fend ant s are obl ig ated to pa y

for t he amountof the c hecks Br a d le y i ss ued i t und er the theor

y that B ra d le y wa s t h e a ge n to f W ri gh ta n d Ma n n in g. Aft e r a n a d e q u a t e t im e fo r d is c o ve ry, W ri g ht an d M anni ng f il ed both tradi ti onal and no ev ide nce moti ons for s ummary j udg ment. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 166a( c) and 166a( i)

. At or near the same t ime, N els on fil ed i ts moti on for tradi ti onal su mmary j udg ment.3

On A ug ust11, 2006, the tr ial courtg ra nted the mot ion s for su mmary

j udg ment fil ed by W ri g ht an d M anni ng , both the tradi ti onal and no ev ide nce moti ons. The order of the t ri al court recite s that , beca use o f its r uling on W rig ht an d M a n n in g’ s mot ions for sum ma ry jud g ment, itdid not reach the meri ts of Nel son’ s motion for summary

judg ment. It is from this ruling that Nelson app eal s . B y o n e i s sue, Nelson claim s thatthe trial court erred in deter minin g t h e re w as no ag ency rela ti onshi p ex is ti ng betw een Bradl ey and W ri g ht an d Bradl ey and Ma nni ng bec ause the s ummary j udg ment ev ide nce r a ise d a facti ss ue re ga rd in g a ge n c y. Standa rd of Rev iew In review ing a tri al court’s de cision t o g ra nt a trad itiona l motio n for sum ma ry ju d gm e nt w e rev iew

the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt de n ovo . Valen ce Ope rating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S. W .3d 6 56, 6 61 ( Tex . 200 5)

. In condu cti ng thi s re v iew w e w il l tak e as tr ue all ev ide nce fav orabl e to the n onmov ant, and i ndul g e e very reason abl e i nferenc e and re sol v e any

doubt s i n the nonmov ant’ s fav or . Id. To su sta in the g ra nti ng of a tradi ti onal summar y j udg ment moti on, w e mustfind t hat t he mov ant has met its burden of es tabl is hin g that there i s n o g enui ne i ss ue of m ater ial fact a nd th at i t i s e nti tl ed to j udg ment as a matter of law

. Am. Tobac co Co. v . G ri nnel l, 951 S.W .2d 4 20, 4 25 ( Tex . 199 7)

. In a n o ev ide nce moti on for summar y j udg ment, the mov ant mus t s et forth t he ele ments of t he adv erse par ty ’s cl aim for w hic h it is all eg ed th ere i s n o ev ide nce. Se e T EX . R. C IV . P. 1 6 6 a (i), W est er n Inv s., Inc . v . U re na, 1 62 S. W .3d 5 47, 5 50 ( Tex . 200 5)

. The b u rd e n t h e n sh ift s t o n o n m o va n tt o sh o w th a tt h e re is m o re t h a n a sc in t il la o f p r o b a t ive4

e vid e n c e t o ra is e a ge n u in e is s u e o f m a t e ri a l fa c to n t h e d is p u t e d is s u e . Fo rb e s I n c . v. Gr ana d a B i o s c i e n c e s , I n c . , 1 2 4 S

. W

. 3 d 1 6 7 , 1 7 2 ( Te x . 2 0 0 3 )

. L e s s t h a n a s c i n t il la of ev ide nce ex is ts w hen t he ev ide nce is so w eak as to c re ate o nly a s ur mis e or

su spi ci on of the fact to be proved. King R a nch, Inc. v. Chap ma n, 11 8 S.W .3d 742 , 751 (Tex. 2003 ). T o raise a genuin e issue of m a t e ri a l fact, h owev er, the ev iden ce mu st exceed m ere suspicion , for e v iden ce so slig ht is to d o not hing m ore tha n ma ke any inferen ce a guess, and as su ch, eq uate t o no ev ide nce. F ord M otor C o. v . R idg w ay , 135 S.W .3d 5 98, 6 01 (Tex . 200 4)

. Con v ersel y , more tha n a s ci nti ll a o f e videnc e ex is ts if i t woul d al low re asona ble and fair-mi nded peopl e to differ in thei r conc lus ion s. Ki ng R anch, 118 S.W .3d at 75 1. Ou r e xam ina ti on of the re cord i s p er formed i n the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the nonmov ant. F or bes, 124 S.W .3d a t 172

. Ana ly sis All parties to th is a p p e a l a gree th at th e de cisiv e issue raised in the no ev iden ce moti ons for s ummary

j udg ment i s t he q uest ion of ag ency . W as Bradl ey acti ng as an ag ent for eit her W ri g ht or Ma nni ng ? If the l atter , t hen t he next q uest ion i s w as Ma nni ng acti ng as an ag ent for

W ri g ht? Reg ardin g ag ency , Tex as law does not presume ag ency , and t he party allegi ng an agency relatio nship has the b urde n of p rov ing the issue. IRA Resou rces, Inc . v . G ri eg o, 22 1 S.W .3d 592, 597 (Tex

. 2007)

. Ag ency is a cons ensua l re lat ion shi p and there mustbe a meeti ng of the mi nds to est abl is h thi s re lat ion shi p, al thoug h c onsen t may be i mpli ed by

w ords or

co nducto f the par

ti es. Se e C ar r v . H unt, 651 S. W .2d 8 75, 8 79 (Tex .C iv .App. –Da ll as 1983, w ri t ref’d n. r. e.). I t i s t he r ig ht of the pr inc ipa l to c ontrol the detai ls of acc ompli shi ng the ass ig ned t ask that pr imar il y dis ti ng uis hes the a g ent from theNel son’ s b ri ef f irst direct s u s t o the ev ide nce of the ag ency rela ti onshi p betw een 1 Ma nni ng and W ri g ht, how ev er , t his i nq uir y is premature as there mustfirst be es tabl is hed a n age n cy rel a ti o n sh ip be twe e n Bra d le y an d W righ t o r Br a d le y an d Man n in g. 5 ind ependentco ntract or . Fi rs t N at’ l Acc eptanc e C o. v . Bi shop, 18 7 S.W .3d 7 10, 7 14 (Te x .Ap p.– Corpus Christi 200 6, no pet .). It is this rig ht of control th at is the su prem e test for th e ex is ten ce o f

a n a gency

rela ti onshi p. I d. Tex as has adopted Secti on 14 K of the Res tatement (S econd ) of A g ency ( 1957)

. Rufenac ht v . I ow a Beef Proces sors, Inc ., 492 F. Supp. 877, 881 (N . D . Tex . 198 0) (c it ing Amer ic an Empl oy ers I ns. C o. v . Ki lg ore, 41 2 S.W .2d 67 ,6 9 ( Tex .C iv .App. –Amar il lo 1967, w ri t ref’d n. r. e.) ). The c omments por ti on of Sect ion 14 K

g iv es g uid ance about how to v iew the factors s ur ro undi ng an a ll eg ati on th at o n e p a rt y h a s a c t e d a s a n a ge n t fo r an o t h e r. T h e fa c t o rs t o b e a n a lyze d a re t h a tt h e p a rt y: 1) i s to re cei v e a fix ed pr ic e for the p ro per ty , i rrespecti v e of the pr ic e pai d by hi m; 2) acts in his ow n name a nd recei v es the t it le to t he proper ty w hic h he thereafter is to transfer , and 3) has an i ndependen t bus ine ss i n buy ing and sel li ng si mil ar proper ty
. Id. Acc ordin g to Nel son, the follo w ing ev ide nce w as int ro duced as summar y j udg ment evidence a nd raised more t han a scin tilla o f e v iden ce regarding th e existence of an agency re la t io n s h ip a s t o b o t h W ri gh ta n d Ma n n in g vi s -a -vi s B ra d le y. 1

Over the y ears, Bradley sold i n excess of $30 million in cattle for W ri g ht. Ei g hty -fiv e percentof Bradl ey ’s busine ss w as w it h W ri g ht C o. Bradl ey w as pai d by

co mmiss ion

. W ri g ht g av e per mis si on to brokers to purchas e c attl e on a deal by dea l basis. W ri g ht de sc ri bed t he ty pe of cattl e des ired by breed and w eig ht c haract er is ti cs .6 At t he ti me of

purchas e, W ri g ht t ook act ual pos ses si on of the cattl e. (The ca tt le w ere l oaded o n to tr uck s a rrang ed by W ri g ht.) A rev iew of the total record rev eal s that each of the fact ors that Nel son all eg edl y rais es the is sue of ag ency ra is es onl y a sur mis e or sus pic ion of ag ency and, ev en w hen v iew ed i n the li g ht mos t fav orabl e to the n onmovan t, i s jus t as eas il y ex pla ine d i n the ter ms of an ind ependentco ntract or . There is no e v ide nce in thi s re cord that w oul d i ndi cat e tha t any of t hese act ion s w oul d not be tak en by Bradl ey or any broker act ing a s a n in d e pendent cont ra cto r. By

w ay of ex ample, Ed W ri g ht’ s a ff ida v itpoi nts out that the b re ed and w eig ht charact er is ti cs are g iv en to hi m by his cus tomers and are notan a ttemptby hi s c ompany to do anythi ng ex cept meet the re q uirements of hi s cus tomers. Lik ew is e, the a ct of ar ra ng ing for s hip ment of the cattl e at ti me of deli v er y i s reflect iv e of the fact that W ri g ht doe s not ho ld cattle beca use h is busine ss is to f ill orde rs fo r fe edlo ts and othe r finish ers. Therefore, he sh ips the cattl e i mmediat ely

. Nel son opi nes that thi s mean s B ra dle y nev er take s posse ssion of the cattle , w hich according to N elson ’s ana ly sis, is indicat iv e of the fact tha t he was operatin g as an agent. How ever, the an alysi s of fered byNe ls o n is equally ope rativ e in the situatio n of an inde pen den t cont ractor as it is w ith an agent. Th e sum ma ry judgme nt evidence indicate d tha t W rig ht alrea dy ha d the cattle sold to a feed y ard. Furthe r, Nel son knew

thatBradl ey

w as act ing as a broker onl y and w oul d re sel l the cattl e and t hat such an arrangem entwas sta nda rd in the ind ustry. Nelson a lleges that Brad ley w as pa id on c ommis si on and that is defini tel y i n d ica ti ve of an ag ency ty pe of rela ti onshi p. The sum ma ry

judgmen t evi den ce indica tes th at Mann ing an d Bradle y m ay have, at tim es, split commi ss ion s; how ev er , on the o cc asio n i n q uest ion , t here w as no proof of spli tti ng of7

c om mi s s i on s . In de ed , th e ev i de nc e i nd i c at ed th at a c he c k for a s pe c i fi c pu rchase price for eac h l ot of c attl e w as is sued by W ri g ht t o Bradl ey , or

hi s e sta te, as oppos ed to a com mission check. In th e f inal an alysi s, indu lgi ng all i nferen ces in favor of Nelso n still results in sum ma ry

judgmen t evi den ce tha t is no mo re indicat iv e of an agency relationsh ip tha n tha t of

an inde pen den t cont ractor re la tionsh ip. Accordingly , w e can saythatthis ev ide nce does no more tha n rais e a s ur mis e or su spi ci on. A sur mis e or s uspi ci on eq uates to no ev ide nce. F ord M otor C o., 135 S. W .3d a t 601

. Beca use Nel son has faile d to pro d u c e a n y

e v i d e n c e o n t h e e s s e n t i a l i s s u e o f a g e n c y b e tw e e n B ra d l e y

a n d W r i g h tor Bradl ey and Ma nni ng , t he tria l co u rtw as cor re ct in g ra nti ng W ri g ht an d M anni ng ’s no ev ide nce moti ons for s ummary j udg ment. F or bes Inc ., 124 S. W .3d a t 172

. W hen a nonmovan t f a il s t o produce more tha n a s ci nti ll a of ev ide nce under the b u rd e n o f

a n o e vid e n c e m o t io n fo r s u m m a ry ju d gm e n tt h e re is n o n e e d t o f u rt h e r a n a lyze the suf f iciency of mo v ant ’s proo f on the traditio nal motion for sum ma ry judgme nt
. Fo rd Mo to r Co ., 135 S. W .3d a t 600

. Beca use of our hol din g abov e w e need not a ddress the addi ti onal i ss ue of w hether M anni ng w as an ag ent o f W ri g ht.

Con cl usi on Hav ing ov er ru led N els on’ s is sue re g ardin g w hether an ag ency

rel ati onshi p ex is ted betw een t he par

ti es, w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice