Case Name: John Persons v. Frost & Co.
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 129
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Persons v. Frost & Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 129–132

Head Matter:
John Persons v. Frost & Co.
Where the defendant was sued as a partner, and plead the general issue, and specially denied that he was a partner, but did not swear to his plea {non 'est factum) as required by the statute, proof by the witness, to establish that he was not a member of the firm, as averred in the petition, was not admissible, because the denial was not under oath. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1443, Note 549.)
Appeal from Bastrop. The case was tried before Hon. A. W. Terrell, one of the district judges.
Frost & Co. sued John Persons, upon a note executed by C. C. Bond & Co., and in their petition alleged that C. C. Bond and John Persons were a mercantile firm at Bastrop, doing business under the firm name of C. C. Bond & Co.; that they made, executed, and delivered the note sued upon in their firm name; and that C. 0. Bond was dead, and prayed for process and judgment against John Persons. Persons answered, denying that he ever was a partner of said Bond, or any otherwise connected with him in business, and consequently was not liable for the firm debts of C. C. Bond & Co., &c. Upon the trial, the plaintiffs offered in evidence the note sued upon, which was not objected to by defendant, and was read to the jury. The defendant then offered the evidence of witnesses, to prove the allegations of his plea and answer, to which the plaintiffs objected, because the answer, not being sworn to, was a nullity, and hence proof under it was inadmissible, which objection was sustained by the court, and the evidence excluded; to which defendant excepted, and filed his bill of exceptions.
Jones §■ Petty, for appellant.
—The ruling of the court was predicated upon section 87 of the act of May 13, 1846, to be found in Art. 741, Hart. Dig., and which reads as follows: “ That, when any petition, answer, or other pleading shall be founded, in whole or in part, on any instrument or note in writing, charged to have been executed by the other party, or by his authority, and not alleged therein to be lost or destroyed, such instrument or note in writing shall be received as evidence, without the necessity of proving its execution, unless the party by _ whom or by whose authority such instrument or note in writing is charged to have been executed, shall file his affidavit, in writing, denying the execution thereof/5 &c.
The defendant, Persons, having failed to swear to his answer, assumed the burden of the proof. • The effect of swearing to the plea is to shift this onus probandi from the defendant to the plaintiffs, and nothing more.
The learned gentlemen reviewed these cases, and argued ably, that, the note having been read, the defendant might, without a sworn denial, prove that he did not execute it, because he was not a partner of the firm which signed it.
This construction was given to this statute in the case of Williams v. Bailes, 9 Tex., 61.
We are referred by the appellees in their brief to Arts. 427, 428, and 429, O. & W. Dig., and also to the case of Drew v. Harrison,. 12 Tex., 279, as conclusive of this case against us. We do not so understand them. The articles in the Digest are nothing more nor less than a substitute for the statute, by the compilers of the condensed synopsis of the decision of this court, (as they supposed truly,) in the case of Drew v. Harrison, and the examination of one will dispose of the other. A careful examination of that case leads irresistibly to the conclusion, that the ruling of the judge in the court below was to the effect, that the plea of non est factum, though not sworn to, changed the burden of proof from the defendants to the plaintiff.
The counsel fully reviewed the case of Drew v. Harrison.
Chandler Turner, for appellee.
—In this case, the defendants in error contend that the rulings of the court below were correct, and in support of this position refer the court to Arts. 427, 428, 429 of 0. & W. Dig., and the case of Drew v. Harrison and Brothers, 12 Tex., 279. Also, suggest delay.

Opinion:
Egberts, J.
—In this case, appellees bring a suit against appellant upon a note purporting to have been executed by 0. 0. Bond & Co., and charges that he, as one of the partners of said firm, executed the note sued on.
Appellant pleaded that he was at no time one of the partners of said firm of C. 0. Bond & Co., and denied the facts stated in the petition. This plea was not sworn to.
Hpon the trial, after the note had been read in evidence, the appellant offered to prove, in support of his plea, that he was not a partner of the firm of 0. C. Bond & Co., as charged in the petition; to which evidence the appellee objected, because the answer was not sworn to. The court sustained the objection, and excluded the evidence.
The answer, so far as it sought to contest the fact of partnership, was, in effect, a plea of non est factum, and might be treated as a nullity. The exact point was raised and so decided in the case of Drew v. Harrison, (12 Tex., 279,) which has been since followed upon a reargument of the question at Tyler, in 1859. (Davis v. Marshall, 25 Tex., 372; see O. & W. Dig., Arts. 427-28-29, and 466.)
Affirmed with damages.