Case Name: HART v. WILSON
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1932-09-21
Citations: 53 S.W.2d 1029
Docket Number: No. 3869
Parties: HART v. WILSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 53
Pages: 1029–1031

Head Matter:
HART v. WILSON.
No. 3869.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.
Sept. 21, 1932.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 9, 1932.
Perry T. Brown, of Friona, for appellant.
J. D. Thomas, of Farwell, for appellee.

Opinion:
MARTIN, J.
Appellee sued and obtained judgment in justice court against appellant for $151.64. Upon appeal to the county court appellee's recovery by judgment against appellant was the sum of $131.64, from which judgment he appeals to this court, presenting as error the refusal of the trial court to sustain a general demurrer and an exception to the admission of evidence because of insufficient pleadings. We regard the two points as identical.
We find in the record a written petition, but no showing pro or eon as to oral pleadings.
The pleadings in justice and county court in cases of this character may be oral. Article 23S8, Verno'n's Ann. Civ. St., and notes under this article. Also first case cited below.
Where written pleadings are filed, it is permissible to supplement the same by oral amendments. Heidenheimer, Strassburger & Co. v. Houston & T. C. R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 197 S. W. 886. We will presume in this court, in the absence of a showing to the contrary, that the written pleadings were supplemented by such oral amendments as cured any claimed defect therein. Heidenheimer, Strassburger & Co. v. H. & T. C. R. Co., supra; Clonts v. Johnson, 116 Tex. 489, 294 S. W. 844, 848. The presumption we indulge in support of the reco'rd takes any merit out of the point attempted to be made by appellant, and we regard any further discussion unnecessary.
The judgment is affirmed.