Close v. Judson
Close v. Judson
Opinion of the Court
This was an action brought ¡in sthe district court, in which the plaintiff set out in his petition the statement-of an account between himself and the defendant, and made by the defendant; also two letters written by the defendant to the plaintiff, in which the defendant acknowledged certain sums of ¡money due from him to the plaintiff.
These instruments were made the foundation ef the action, and the plaintiff averred «their execution by the defendant.
There was no' plea ef non est factum, nor did the defendant •deny the execution ef these papers under oath, but he objected to 'the reading of them on the trial. The objection was overruled by the court, and, we think, properly. The case of Fulshear v. Randon, 18 Texas, 275, and the case of Prince v. Thompson, 21 Texas, 480, are all sufficient authority in ¡this case.
We discover no error in the record-on which to reverse -the judgment in this case, .and .it .is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Hiram Close v. Junius Judson
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- T. Letters alleged to have been written by a defendant to the plaintiff, and containing acknowledgments of indebtedness, may be made the founda tion of a petition, within the purview of article 1443, Paschal’s Digest; and when so made they are admissible in evidence without proof of their execution, unless the defendant has denied their execution by plea under oath. 2. The plaintiff’s petition alleged that the defendant owed him a certain amount for certain machinery, and then proceeded to aver that the defendant had acknowledged the indebtedness in letters written by him to the plaintiff on certain dates. , Copies of the letters were exhibited with and “ made parts of the petitionbut no direct allegation was made that the petition was “ founded in whole or in part ” upon the letters. Held, that the averments sufficed to make the letters the foundation of the action.