Case Name: David L. Rowe v. John Collier
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 252
Docket Number: 
Parties: David L. Rowe v. John Collier.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 252–256

Head Matter:
David L. Rowe v. John Collier.
Where the parties had had a settlement, upon which the plaintiff had given the defendant his note, with securities, for a balance, it devolved on the plaintiff to prove that the items of his account were not included in the settlement; otherwise the presumption that they were so included remains in full force.
Where it is. not a case of conflict, but of entire deficiency of evidence, a new . trial ought to be granted.
(For the doctrine of new trials, see Paschal’s Ann. Dig.,’Art. ldTO, note 566.) ,
Error from McLennan. The case was tried before Hon. U. W. Battle, one of the district judges.
It is a fact case, and the precedent can be of no great value. Collier sued Rowe for the sum of thirteen hundred and ten dollars, ($1,310,) upon various items of account, ranging, in point of time, from 1857 to the 1st of Eebuary, 1858.
Plaintiff in error plead, among other things, that on the 24th day of March, 1858, he and the said John Collier “had a fair, full, just, mutual, and final settlement of all matters of account and indebtedness, then and before existing against each other; and upon said fair, just, and final settlement of mutual accounts and indebtedness, all transactions, of what nature soever, had by and between said plaintiff (Collier) and defendant, up to the date thereof as aforesaid, whereby indebtedness had accrued in any manner whatever, were embraced, considered, settled, acquitted, and concluded by said settlement; and that in said settlement the defendant in error fell in debt to plaintiff in error in the sum of $1,774 70, for which he executed and delivered his note, with B. D. Scott and W. S. Gill, as securities.”
Defendant in error filed an amended petition, in the nature of a replication, denying that the items of account upon which his suit was based were included in said settlement, and alleging that said settlement only embraced their accounts as partners in teaching school; that it did not relate to their private individual matters; and that the items of account upon which suit is founded were especially excepted from said settlement. Verdict and judgment for defendant in error for the sum of $1,035. The facts not proved are well stated in the briefs of counsel and the opinion of the court.
Nowlin Herring, for plaintiff' in error.
—But for the amended petition of defendant in error, the settlement proven would have been clearly conclusive against his entire action, as every cause thereof is prior, and neither fraud nor mistake alleged. By his amended petition, then, he assumes, and is legally held to the burden of proving, that the settlement was such as therein alleged; that is, of “their accounts as partners in teaching school.” While witnesses state that such was their understanding of the settlement, they fail to show that it was in fact limited to “their accounts as partners in teaching school;’’ and they utterly fail to explain many items of the settlement. They do show, however, that it was full, final, and conclusive, as to all the indebtedness of Collier to Rowe.
But, again, suppose the evidence had sustained the allegations of the amended petition, which it certainly'did not do, then Collier could only recover so much as he showed by proof, corresponding to his allegations, to be due him by Rowe, less whatever the evidence shows Rowe paid him outside of the settlement. By casting up the $225 charged to have been loaned in McCall’s office, the $360 loaned through ¥m. McKerrall, agent, and the sum of $450, half the value of the negro girl purchased of E. J. 3L Blair, the verdict of the jury is obtained.
It is admitted that the evidence establishes the item of $225 loaned in McCall’s office; but it is denied that the evidence sustains the verdict as to either of the other two items. -There is no evidence at all that McKerrall was the agent of Collar, or that through him Collier loaned Rowe $360. The evidence, so far from establishing this, clearly •shows that Collier was in a “tight” for money; that he was “hard up;” that he had been trying in vain to make collections; that he was willing to sell his horse and buggy at a sacrifice, or do anything in the world to get the money. Collier asked witness “to loan him $360 for a short time.” Witness agreed to do so, which delighted both Collier and Rowe, manifestly showing that the former was the debtor and the latter the creditor. Rowe acted as the agent of Collier in going to town with witness for the money, which Collier subsequently refunded; and whether Rowe applied it to the payment of a debt due him from Collier, or paid it over to Collier, one thing is certain from the evidence, and that is, that the $360 was loaned to Collier, and not to Rowe, as charged.
The allegation as to the purchase of a negro girl from E. J. K. Blair is not supported, in whole or in part, by the evidence. It is not shown that Collier ever paid one cent for said girl, the averment that he paid $450 to the contrary notwithstanding. There is no evidence at all that Rowe fraudulently had the bill of sale taken in his own name, or even that any bill of sale was executed.
JR. IV". Goode also submitted a brief on the same side.
He insisted that the repliant held the affirmative, and he must prove his replication, that the items sued on were not embraced in the settlement. (1 Greenl. Ev., § 74; Davenport v. Prudohme, 2 La. Cond., p. 74.)
And where there was no evidence to sustain the verdict, a new trial will be granted. (Taylor v. Ashley, 15 Tex., 50; Chandler v. Meckin, 22 Tex., 22.)
Ho argument was furnished for the defendant in error.

Opinion:
Roberts, J.
—The evidence of plaintiff below was deficient as to one item of his account, upon which the jury must have found in his favor, to wit, the item $360, paid by McKerrall to Rowe for Collier.
The plaintiff below, to avoid the force of the presumption arising from having given his note to Rowe, alleged in his amended petition that this item, with the others included in the account sued on, was left out of the settlement when the note was given, and was not included in the account stated between the parties at that time.
The evidence of the transaction is very unfavorable to the proof, that it was a loan from Collier to Rowe, as alleged. The transaction bore much more the appearance of the' payment of a debt from Collier to Rowe than of a loan. It is not shown that it was not a partnership transaction, which was included in, and accounted for, in some one of the large unexplained items embraced in the settlement when the note was given. This Collier undertook to show. Having failed, indeed, to show what was the real nature of this transaction, and its disconnection with the matters involved in the settlement, the presumption arising from the giving of the note upon a settlement is left in full force as to this item; and, therefore, as to it, there is an entire deficiency of evidence to sustain the verdict. It is not a case of conflict of evidence in relation to this item, for there was no evidence tending to prove one material averment, which was, that this item was not embraced, in the settlement.
For this reason, a new trial should have been granted..
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.