Court Opinion

ID: 9831764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:20:36.790942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:37.731853
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee on motion for rehearing cites Lumber Co. v. Taylor, 59 Tex. Civ. App. 442, 126 S. W. 53, as authority for the proposition that f. o. b. cars “merely indicates' that the purchaser is to pay the freight to the point mentioned.” Witnesses in that case so testified. The courts hold otherwise. However, it was immaterial in that case whether or not f. o. b. meant that delivery was to be made at the point mentioned. No delivery was made. The seller sued the buyer, who lived in Dallas county, for the purchase price, which he did not agree to pay in Harrison county, nor elsewhere, if the lumber was never delivered to him.
Appellee also cites Burkitt v. Berry, 143 S. W. 1188. That case is not in point. It merely holds that an agreement to deliver goods at a certain place does not fix such place as the place of payment.
We would not have perhaps reversed this case -alone upon the insufficiency of the testimony of the witness Carson, but what we *979stated in onr opinion herein is the rule as to the necessity of a party who claims the benefit of an exception to bring himself, clearly within such exception.
Motion overruled.
Overruled.