Case Name: MORRIS COUNTY NAT. BANK v. PARRISH et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1918-11-21
Citations: 207 S.W. 939
Docket Number: No. 2034
Parties: MORRIS COUNTY NAT. BANK v. PARRISH et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 207
Pages: 939–941

Head Matter:
MORRIS COUNTY NAT. BANK v. PARRISH et al.
(No. 2034.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.
Nov. 21, 1918.
On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing, Dec. 19, 1918.)
1. Appeal and Error <&wkey;1031(4) — -Reversal por Error — Evidence—Rule op Court.
Despite Rule 62a for Courts of Civil Appeals (149 S. W. x), injury will be presumed when trial court erroneously excluded evidence constituting foundation of action or defense under such circumstances that it cannot reasonably be expected that it can be supplied by other evidence.
2. Counties <&wkey;64 — Officers — Treasurer’s Bond — 'Conditions.
Bond of treasurer of county, in which the words substituted for words of the statute were equivalent thereto, held not invalid as statutory bond on ground that it was not conditioned as statute required.
3. Counties <&wkey;64 — Officers — Treasurer’s .Bond — Approval.
Approval by commissioners’ court of bond of county treasurer, if necessary to its validity, could be shown otherwise than by entry on minutes of court.
Appeal from District Court, Morris County ; J. A. Ward, Judge.
Suit by the Morris County National Bank against W. M. Parrish and others. From judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed, and cause remanded.
Appellee Parrish was county treasurer of Morris county. The other appellees were sureties on a bond made by him as such treasurer in November, 1914. Appellant claimed to be the duly qualified depository, under the act of 1905 (Vernon’s Statutes, arts. 2440 to 2453), of moneys belonging to said county. The suit was by appellant on said bond for $6,245.61, which it claimed to be damages it was entitled to because of the failure, it alleged, of Parrish as such treasurer to comply with section 24 (Vernon’s Statutes, art. 2444) of said act, which required him to turn over to it moneys in his hands as such treasurer.
At the trial the bond sued upon was identified by J. D. Lasater, county clerk of Morris county in 1914, testifying as a witness, as the bond made by said Parrish as county treasurer in November of that year. Appellant thereupon offered the bond as evidence, together with a certificate of the county judge of Morris county, attached thereto, showing it to have been “approved in open commissioners’ court”; but on appellees’ objection thereto on the ground (1) that it was' not conditioned as the law required such bonds to be, and (2) that it did not áppear from testimony competent to prove the fact that it had been approved by the commissioners’ court, the bond was excluded. Appellant then offered to prove by the witness Lasater that, while the minutes of the commissioners’ court did not show it, as a matter of fact the bond was duly approved by that court November 10, 1914. The testimony was excluded on the theory, it seems, that the approval of the bond by the commissioners’ court could be shown in no other way than by an order entered in the minutes of the proceedings of that court. After excluding the bond as evidence, the trial court instructed the jury to return a verdict in ap-pellees’ favor. The appeal is from a judgment in accordance with such a verdict.
Mahaffey, Keeney & Dalby, of Texarkana, for appellant.
P. A. Turner, of Texarkana, and Henderson & Bolin, of Daingerfield, for appellees.

Opinion:
WILLSON, C. J.
(after stating the facts as above). The contentions presented by the assignments are that the trial court erred: (1) When he refused to permit appellant to prove by the witness Lasater that the bond sued upon was duly approved by the commissioners' court; and (2) when he excluded the bond as evidence. It would serve no useful purpose to determine whether the trial court erred as claimed or not, for, if it were determined that he did, we would be bound, nevertheless, to affirm the judgment. It does not appear from the record that appellant either proved or offered to prove that Parrish as county treasurer held moneys he was bound, and failed, to turn over to it. Without such proof, and proof showing the amount of such moneys, appellant would not have been entitled, had the bond been admitted as evidence, to judgment' against appellees. It does not appear from anything in the record that appellant could have made such proof, and we have no right to assume that it could have made it. Therefore, were it conceded that the trial court erred'as claimed, we could not say, as we must to reverse the judgment, that the error "probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment in the case." Rule 62a for the Government of Courts of Civil Appeals; Ry. Co. v. Shinn, 153 S. W. 636; Hopkins v. King, 204 S. W. 360; Ry. Co. v. Miller, 190 S. W. 819; Lumber Co. v. Oil Co., 194 S. W. 633.
The judgment is affirmed.
©ssFor other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes