Case Name: William B. McKaughan v. William Harrison
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 461
Docket Number: 
Parties: William B. McKaughan v. William Harrison.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 461–463

Head Matter:
William B. McKaughan v. William Harrison.
Jt was error to give judgment by default, where the defendant had plead the general issue.
The general denial put the plaintiff to the proof of his case.
(For judgments by default, see Paschal’s Dig., Art. 595.)
Appeal from Williamson. The case was tried before Hon. Edward H. Vontress, one of the district judges.
The suit was on a note for $1,310 95, due at one day. The defendant plead, 1. A special plea, impeaching the consideration, on the ground that the plaintiff had charged $25 of interest on an open account, which he had added to the account, and thus made up the amount of the note. 2. The general denial. The plaintiff excepted.to “the answer,” because it was not sworn to, and because it was insufficient in law. The whole case was submitted to the court. The court sustained the exceptions, and “struck out the answer,” and rendered judgment for the plaintiff, from wffiich the defendant appealed. The plaintiff suggested delay, which opened the errors, none having been assigned.
Chandler Turner, for appellant.
—The general denial was enough to put the plaintiff upon proof of his cause of action. As the judgment shows that it was not done, the case must be reversed.
Thomas P. Hughes, for appellee.
—In behalf of the appellee, it is stated, that his exceptions to plaintiff’s answer extended only to the plea of partial failure of consideration, and that the order of the court, striking out the answer, relates only to said plea of failure of consideration. The general denial was placed after the plea of failure of consideration, arid, stuck off on another page, was not plead in the due order of pleading, was never called to the attention of the court for its action, or noticed by the attorney for the plaintiff.
2. A general denial discloses no defense on an action in a promissory note; it does not lay the foundation on which to have a continuance. The only office that can be claimed for it is, that it puts the plaintiff upon proof of his case. (Fowler v. Buckner, 23 Tex., 84.) The judgment shows that the note was given in evidence. It is suggested that the appeal was taken for delay, without good, probable, or sufficient cause, and damages asked.

Opinion:
Bell, J.
—The exception of the plaintiff below to the answer of the defendant was doubtless addressed to that portion of the answer which impeached the legality óf a part of the consideration of the note sued on, and the ruling of the court was probably intended to sustain the exception to the answer only so far as the answer asserted the illegality of the consideration of the note. •
But it was error for the court to give judgment by default, when the defendant had pleaded the general denial. The general denial put the plaintiff to the proof of his case.
The judgment is reversed and the cause
Remanded.