From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nichols v. Murray

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, El Paso
Apr 22, 1926
284 S.W. 301 (Tex. Civ. App. 1926)

Opinion

No. 1922.

April 22, 1926.

Appeal from Dallas County Court, at Law; Paine L. Bush, Judge.

Action by Wayne Murray against H. H. Nichols. Judgment for plaintiff by default, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

W. M. Cramer, of Dallas, for appellant.

F. J. Dudley, of Dallas, for appellee.


Murray sued Nichols to recover $295.05 alleged to be due for goods, wares, and merchandise sold and delivered as per verified open account attached to and made a part of the petition. The plaintiff recovered judgment by default.

There is no statement of facts, but the judgment upon its face affirmatively shown that it was based solely upon and supported in evidence only by the account does not disclose the petition. The account does not disclose any item of the articles alleged to have been sold. The first item is typical of the rest. It reads: "June 21, 1923, 241 50.52." This account is insufficient as a verified open account, which proves itself under the statute and will not of itself support the default judgment under the following decisions: Wall Carr v. J. M. Radford Groc. co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 176 S.W. 785; Tankersley v. Martin-Reo Sales Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 242 S.W. 328; Watson Co. y. Bleeker (Tex.Civ.App.) 269 S.W. 147; A. Harris Co. v. Grinnell Willis Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 187 S.W. 753; Brin v. Wachusetts Shirt Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 43 S.W. 295.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

Nichols v. Murray

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, El Paso
Apr 22, 1926
284 S.W. 301 (Tex. Civ. App. 1926)
Case details for

Nichols v. Murray

Case Details

Full title:NICHOLS v. MURRAY

Court:Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, El Paso

Date published: Apr 22, 1926

Citations

284 S.W. 301 (Tex. Civ. App. 1926)

Citing Cases

Williamsburg Nursing Home, Inc. v. Paramedics, Inc.

An account insufficient on its face as a verified open account under Rule 185, T.R.C.P., will not support a…

Willacy Cty. v. Cent. Power Light

Such allegations and proof are fundamentally ineffectual. Tankersley v. Sales Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 242 S.W.…