Case ID: tex_12/html/0179-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Wheeler, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Johnson v. Lane.
    "Where the petition for a certiorari was filed by the plaintiff in the Justice’s Court, and alleged that he had sued the defendant on a promissory, note, that the consideration of the note was a horse sold by him to the defendant, and that though the defendant did not impeach the consideration or validity of the note, yet the Justice rendered judgment for the defendant, it was held that the petition did not negative other probable defences, and was therefore insufficient.
    Error from Rusk. The plaintiff in error filed his petition in the District Court, alleging that he had sued the defendant on a promissory note before a Justice of the Peace ; that the consideration of the note was a horse sold by him to the defendant ; and that, though the defendant did not impeach the consideration or validity of the note, yet the Justice rendered judgment for the defendant. Wherefore he prayed a certiorari to remove the case, for a new .trial, into the District Court. At the return Term, the defendant moved the Court to dismiss the case for the want of sufficiency in the petition; which, at a subsequent Term, the case having been continued on affidavit of the defendant in the certiorari, the Court sustained.
    
      Armstrong and Pitner, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Swan and Parsons, for defendant in error.
   Wheeler, J.

There manifestly was no error in dismissing the case, for the obvious reason that it does not appear by the petition, that any error was committed by the Justice or any wrong done the defendant. It is not alleged that the note remained due, in whole or in part, at the time of the bringing of the suit. It did not necessarily follow that, because the plaintiff in the suit before the Justice held the note of the defendant, the latter was indebted to him, or that he was entitled to recover upon it, though the consideration or validity of the note were not impeached. It appears by the return to the certiorari, that there was a jury trial of the case before the Justice. The defendant may have proved a set-off or payment. The want of a sufficient consideration, or of legal validity for any other cause, are not the only defences which may be made to a promissory note. The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.