Court Opinion

ID: 9774317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:15:18.941448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:05.920320
License: Public Domain

HUGHES, Justice
(dissenting).
Appellees’ seventh point reads:
“The trial court erred in allowing attorneys’ fees against the Appellees in this case even though Article 2226 might generally be available to claimants of a subcontractor as against a prime contractor and its surety because the demands of Richards were excessive and the Appellees tendered the amounts of inchoate liability.”
Under this point appellees state:
“The trial court judicially knew as does this honorable court know that before this suit was filed and after the suit was filed, but before the venue hearing, the Appellees tendered money to Richards in satisfaction of all inchoate liability as predicated against them under Article 5160.”
Unless the materials furnished by appellant to the subcontractor, W. S. Luckie, Inc., were actually used on the highway project on which appellees were prime contractor and Surety, respectively, they were not liable for any of such materials so furnished under the provisions of Art. 5160, Vernon’s Ann.Tex.Civ.St. In my opinion, the admission of liability by appellees, above recited, is an admission that the materials furnished by appellant were used on such highway project, and that this case should not be reversed to prove an admitted fact.
I respectfully dissent from the order of reversal. I would affirm the judgment.