Case Name: CHATTANOOGA MEDICINE CO. v. LIGON et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1916-11-29
Citations: 191 S.W. 571
Docket Number: No. 5708
Parties: CHATTANOOGA MEDICINE CO. v. LIGON et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 191
Pages: 571–571

Head Matter:
CHATTANOOGA MEDICINE CO. v. LIGON et al.
(No. 5708.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.
Nov. 29, 1916.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 24, 1917.)
Appeal and Error ©=»548(4) — Review—Motion to Reinstate — Bill op Exceptions.
Where a motion to reinstate a case was not verified, and no statement of facts or bill of exception has been brought up showing that evidence to sustain its material averments was offered, a judgment overruling the motion will be affirmed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 2439; Dec. Dig. &wkey;> 548(4).]
Appeal from Falls County Court; F. S. Hefner, Judge.
Action by the Chattanooga Medicine Company against T. H. Ligón and others. From a judgment of dismissal and a judgment overruling plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the case, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Page Collier, of Marlin, for appellant. Nat Llewellyn, of Marlin, for appellees.

Opinion:
KEY, J.
This suit was commenced October 31, 1914, and on October 18, 1915, which was the first day of that term of court, the case was dismissed upon the defendant's verbal motion for failure of the plaintiff to file a cost bond. The plaintiff filed an un-sworn motion to reinstate the case, setting forth nine reasons why it was claimed that the judgment of dismissal should be set aside. That motion was overruled, and the plaintiff has prosecuted this appeal, and is complaining of the action of the trial court in dismissing the case and in overruling the motion to reinstate.
We overrule appellant's contention, and hold that the judgment should be afiirmed, among other reasons, because the record does not sustain the material averments made in the motion to reinstate the case. That motion was not verified, and if any evidence was introduced to sustain its aver-ments, no statement of facts or bill of exception has been brought up showing that such evidence was offered. For aught that we know, the material facts may have been the reverse of those alleged in the motion to reinstate the cause, and may have fully justified the order of dismissal.
No error has been shown, and the judgment is affirmed.
Afiirmed.