# Henry S. Miller Co. v. Bynum

> Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · March 8, 1990 · 797 S.W.2d 51

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9769166

## Case

- **Full name:** HENRY S. MILLER CO. v. Douglas BYNUM and Starfire Engineering, Inc., D/B/A Tiffany’s Hair Styles
- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- **Decided:** March 8, 1990
- **Citations:** 797 S.W.2d 51; 1990 WL 21398
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Evans
- **Judges:** Evans, Duggan, O'Connor
- **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Declined to follow by Smith v. Southwest Feed Yards, Ltd., 1991 Tex. App. LEXIS 1570 (1991).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9769166

## Opinion text

MOTION FOR REHEARING
EVANS, Chief Justice.
In its motion for rehearing, Miller argues that we erroneously stated it did not challenge the trial court’s findings that Miller made misrepresentations in violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Miller asserts, in its motion for rehearing, that our statement is in error because Miller did complain, in the trial court and on appeal, that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the court’s findings that Miller had knowledge of the falsity of the material facts complained of.
We reject Miller’s argument. Miller’s complaint at trial and on this appeal is *64 simply that the evidence does not show it had knowledge of undisclosed material facts. Miller does not, in any of its points of error, challenge the trial court’s findings that Miller made affirmative misrepresentations of fact. Thus, the trial court’s findings of such misrepresentations must be upheld as a matter of law.
The motion for rehearing is denied.
O’CONNOR, J., dissents.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9769166. Public record. Not legal advice.