Case Name: Samuel Whitaker v. George W. Record
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 382
Docket Number: 
Parties: Samuel Whitaker v. George W. Record.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 382–383

Head Matter:
Samuel Whitaker v. George W. Record.
Where a petition does not contain an averment of a breach of contract upon the part of defendant, it is manifestly insufficient to support a recovery.
It is not enough that the plaintiff is the holder of a note which the defendants are liable to pay; it must appear by averment that they-have violated their contract, by refusing to make payment of the note agreeably to their undertaking, in order that the petition may show a cause of action.
It is essential, to constitute the statement of a cause of action, that it appear by averment not only that the plaintiff has a right, but that the defendant has done or omitted some act or duty in derogation of that right.
Error from Collin. The case was tried before Hon. Hat. M. Burford, one of the district judges.
This was a suit upon a promissory note executed by Samuel Whitaker, and indorsed hy David Stiff* John W. Haynes, and William Wilson.
The petition of Record in the court below did not allege that the note was due, or that payment had been demanded.
The returns of the sheriff were irregular. At the trial judgment was taken hy default. The defendant petitioned for writ of error and supersedeas, and alleged for error:
1. That the petition did not disclose any right of action, and contained no averment that the note was due, or was unpaid, at the date of the institution of the suit.
2. That the petition did not show any cause of action against Stiff, Haynes, or Wilson, or state their residences, or aver any liability in them.
3 and 4. Informality of service..
John G. Easton, for plaintiff in error,
referred to Underhill v. Lockett, 20 Tex., 130; Graves v. Robertson, 22 Tex., 130; Willie v. Thomas, 22 Tex., 175.
George W. Guess, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Wheeler, C. J.
—The petition is manifestly insufficient to support a recovery. It contains no averment of any breach of contract on the part of the defendants. It is not enough that the plaintiff is the holder of a note which the defendants are liable to pay; it must appear by averment that they have violated their contract, by refusing to make payment of the note agreeably to their undertaking,' in order that the petition may show a cause of action. It is essential, to constitute the statement of a cause of action, that it appear, by averment, not only that the plaintiff has a right, but that the defendant has done or omitted some act or duty in derogation of that right.
Moreover, there is no sufficient service upon any of-the defendants.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.