Case Name: HAMILTON v. HANNUS
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-04-20
Citations: 185 S.W. 938
Docket Number: No. 7387
Parties: HAMILTON v. HANNUS.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 185
Pages: 938–941

Head Matter:
HAMILTON v. HANNUS.
(No. 7387.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Ft. Worth.
April 20, 1912.
On Rehearing, April 8, 1916.)
1. Appeal and Error &wkey;5512 — Record — Showing Jurisdiction — Intermediate Courts.
The transcript on appeal from the county court in a case originating in justice’s court should contain a transcript from the justice’s court showing the rendition of judgment and the giving of appeal bond there, necessary for jurisdiction of the county court.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 2326; Dec. Dig. &wkey;>512.]
On Rehearing.
2. Appeal and Error c&wkey;>635(2)'— Record — Amendment.
The judgment on appeal from the county court in a case originating in justice’s coui’t should not be reversed for failure of the record to show rendition of judgment and giving of appeal bond in the justice court, necessary for jurisdiction of the county court, without op portunity being first afforded for correcting the record, if possible.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2776, 2829; Dec. Dig. &wkey; 635(2).]
3. Evidence <&wkey;444(6) — Parol Evidence — Condition oe Payment — Notes.
As between the parties to a note, the oral condition on which it was delivered, that it should be payable only on the happening of a certain event, is valid.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 1913, 2049; Dec. Dig. &wkey;444(6).]
4. Evidence <&wkey;213(l) — Odder oe Compromise.
Offer of the maker of a note to the payee, long after its maturity and refusal of payment, and after it had been given to an attorney to collect by suit, to allow it on a piano if said maker would buy a certain piano from said payee, being clearly one of compromise, containing no admission of liability or of any fact from which liability could be inferred, cannot be shown in an action on the note, in which the defense was delivery of the note on an oral condition of payment, which had not been satisfied.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 745, 748-750; Dec. Dig. &wkey; 213(1).]
5. Trial &wkey;>251(7) — Instructions — Undisputed Pacts.
Where plaintiff in an action on a note, in which the defense was that it was delivered on the oral condition that it should not be paid unless a $400 note given by B. to defendant on the purchase of land was paid, merely denied that there was any such condition, and did not raise the issue of collusion or good faith, it was error to submit the issue of whether the note of B. was paid, it appearing that B. refused to pay it, and otherwise refused to comply with his contract of purchase, on the ground of misrepresentations by plaintiff, the broker, and that defendant, to protect the property, had to take up a note, constituting a lien on the land, which B. had assumed, and that consequently defendant canceled the contract of sale, and surrendered to B. his $409 note.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. § 592; Dec. Dig. ©=»251(7).]
Appeal from Baylor County Court; Nat G. Mitchell, Judge.
Action by J. J. Hannus against J. W. Hamilton. Prom a judgment for plaintiff on appeal from a justice, defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
D. A. Holman, of Seymour, and S. J. Hunter, of Pt. Worth, for appellant. Glasgow & Kenan, of Seymour, for appellee.

Opinion:
CONNER, O. J.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court in appellee's favor for the sum of $184, the amount found to be due upon a promissory note in the sum of $126.
The transcript before us discloses a transcript from the justice's court showing that the suit upon the note mentioned had originated therein, and reciting that the plaintiff, J. J. Hannus, had recovered a judgment against the defendant, J. W. Hamilton, on July 27, 1909, but the justice's transcript does not contain the judgment so recited, and wholly fails to show that any appeal bond, as required by law, had been given or approved by the justice of the peace.
Under such circumstances the judgment must be reversed, and th'e cause remanded to the county court, with instructions to dismiss the appeal unless the jurisdictional facts are made to appear in a'ccordance with the principles heretofore decided by us in the cases of American Soda Fountain Co. v. Mason, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 532, 119 S. W. 714, and Ware v. Clark, 58 Tex. Civ. App. 356, 125 S. W. 618. See, also, case No. 7400, Patrick v. Pierce, 187 S. W. -, this day decided by us.
Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
(g^>Por other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
ig^ofor other oases see. same topic and KEY-NUMB BR in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes.