Case Name: Chas. L. Pyron et al. v. Jonathan Grinder
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 159
Docket Number: 
Parties: Chas. L. Pyron et al. v. Jonathan Grinder.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 159–162

Head Matter:
Chas. L. Pyron et al. v. Jonathan Grinder.
This court will not revise the judgment on the question of the sufficiency of the evidence .to support the verdict, unless a new trial was applied for on that ground. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1470, Note 5G6.)
Where a defendant did not set up the fact of suretyship in his answer, as the statute contemplates, or call on the court to render the judgment therein described, he cannot complain that the judgment is rendered against him as a principal. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 4785, Note 1071.)
Where the exhibit to the petition shows that the defendant’s name to a note was wanting, the verdict will not be sustained, although the original petition averred that he executed the note, and the statement of facts shows that such an execution was proved.
Where an instrument sued on is made a part of the petition, there can be no variance; the instrument filed will control the averments of the petition.
Error from Bexar District Court. The case was tried before Hon. Thomas J. Devine.
Grinder sued Pyron, Mitchell, and Temple, charging • that they executed to him thirty-six promissory notes, on the 16th April, 1858, thirty-five of which were for $100 each, and one for $63 50. In an amended petition, the plaintiff made the notes a part of his petition, and filed them. The plaintiff dismissed as to Temple, who was not served. The jury returned the following verdict: “We, the jury, find for the plaintiff the amount of notes sued on, with interest, according to the terms of the notes.” Upon which judgment was rendered for $4,129 93.
Asa Mitchell, one of the defendants, moved for a new trial, on the grounds, that the court overruled the motion for continuance, and also that it allowed the filing of the amended petition. The statement of facts showed that the ’ defendants, Taylor, Pyron, Temple, and Mitchell, executed the thirty-five notes of $100 each, and the note of $63 50, and that the defendant, Temple, was the principal, and was absent from the State. The defendants assigned for error variance, and that the verdict and judgment were excessive. Mitchell assigned as error, that he was not a party to the fifth note described on the 8th page of the transcript, and that the judgment should have been against him as security. The transcript shows that his name did not appear on the fourteenth note. •
S. G. Neioton, for appellants,
argued that there was a variance between the allegations and proofs; that the verdict was contrary to law; that Mitchell did not make one of the notes; that the notes were misdescribed, &c.
1. A. Geo. W. Paschal, for the appellees.
—1. The annexing the notes to the amended petition cured the variance, if there were any.
2. As Mitchell did not deny the execution of any of the notes, nor objected to their being read when offered in evidence, the want of his signature in the transcript could not he assigned as error.
3. The ground of excessive verdict was not taken in the motion for a new trial.

Opinion:
Wheeler, G. J.
—It is a sufficient answer to the objection, that the verdict was not warranted by the evidence, that this was not made a ground of the motion for a new trial. It is well settled, that this court will not revise the judgment, on the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, unless a new trial was applied for on that ground.
There is nothing in the objection that judgment was not properly rendered against the defendant, Mitchell, as surety. The defendant did not set up the fact of suretyship in his answer, as the statute contemplates, or call on the court to render the judgment therein prescribed. (O. & W. Dig., Art. 1560, 1599.) The court therefore did not err in giving judgment against him as a principal.
The only error assigned which presents any question properly arising upon the record for revision is, that the verdict .is excessive as to the defendant, Mitchell, inasmuch as judgment is rendered against him upon all the notes sued on, and it appears by the petition and exhibits, which are made a part of it, that there was one of them which he did not execute.
In the statement of facts, it is said to have been proved that he executed all the notes. If the allegations of the petition laid any foundation for the introduction of such proof, or stated a cause of action co-extensive with the proof, it would undoubtedly support the recovery; and the question is, whether it does state such cause of action.
The allegation of the original petition is, that Mitchell, together with the other defendants, executed all the notes. But the amended petition makes the notes a part of it; and, as they are there set out, it appears that the signature of this defendant, Mitchell, is wanting to one of them. It has been repeatedly decided, that where an instrument sued on is made a part of the petition, there can be no variance between the allegations and the proof; and this is upon the ground, that the instrument itself, thus made a part of the petition and filed with it for the inspection of the defendant, must control and cure any misdescription of it in the body of the petition. Giving it that effect in the present case, the petition shows no cause of action against the defendant, Mitchell, on the note in question. As to that note, therefore, there being no cause of action stated in the petition, the recovery cannot be siqiported; and to that extent the judgment is excessive. This will require that the judgment be reversed and the cause remanded, unless the plaintiff shall see proper to remit so much of the verdict as renders it excessive. In that case, this court will render the judgment which the court below ought to have rendered.
[The plaintiff remitted $100 and interest as against Mitchell, and the judgment was reformed accordingly.]
Affirmed.