Case Name: Philip C. Tucker, Administrator v. Emily W. Brackett
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 199
Docket Number: 
Parties: Philip C. Tucker, Administrator v. Emily W. Brackett.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 199–202

Head Matter:
Philip C. Tucker, Administrator v. Emily W. Brackett.
A receipt for money, in the ordinary form, on account, will not be imputed to an outstanding note, unless it was so intended, and that intention must be proved.
Where a note was given in 1845, on which suit was brought in 1851, in the federal court, and judgment rendered by default in 1857, and afterwards judgment was rendered on the federal court judgment in Bexar District Court, the collection of which latter judgment was perpetually enjoined, because of the discovery of a receipt for money on “ account,” of a subsequent date to the note: this court, believing the proof wholly insufficient, yet failed to render a judgment dismissing the petition, but referred the case back for a new trial, to give the party the opportunity to prove a claim behind the judgment, if she could.
Appeal from Bexar. The case was tried before Hon. Edmund J. Davis, one of the district judges.
. Frederick W. Muller, in his lifetime, brought suit in the United States District Court, at Galveston, against O. B. Brackett and Philip Tucker, the administrator of Muller, and on the 9th January, 1857, recovered a judgment by default against Brackett for $1,040 08. Tucker sued Mrs. Brackett, in her character of administratrix of O. B. Brackett, in the Bexar District Court," upon this judgment, and recovered judgment against her for $1,256 78, upon which execution issued. Mrs. Brackett now prayed an injunction against Tucker, on the ground, that before the original suit O. B. Brackett had paid $420, which ought to have been credited on the note on which the first judgment was founded. The excuse for not pleading the payment in the federal court was, that O. B. Brackett had mislaid the receipt, and she had just discovered it. The judge granted an injunction ad interim.
Tucker answered, by special exceptions, averring that the petitioner did not show any diligence in discovering the evidence upon the trial; and, also, that the receipt set up was not applicable to the note on which the judg ment had been obtained in the federal court, but was imputed to the payment of an account. The exceptions were overruled, and the equities tried by the judge without a jury, and the injunction was perpetuated.
The facts proven in the case were: 1. The judgment of Tucker, administrator of Muller, of 9th October, 1858, for $1,256 78. 2. The judgment of the federal court at Galveston, in favor of Tucker, administrator of Muller, against Brackett, dated 9th of January, 1857, for $1,040 48. On this judgment the judgment in Bexar District Court was rendered. This federal court judgment was founded on a note, dated 31st October, 1845, due by Brackett to Muller, at ninety days, for $554 62. The receipt sought to be plead against this judgment, rendered upon a judgment between the parties, was as follows:
“Received, Dew Orleans, 22d October, 1846, from Mr. O. B. Brackett, four hundred and twenty-four dollars, on account.
“Bor $420. B. Wm. Muller.”
The defendant, Tucker, proved by experts the custom ' of merchants to specify notes where the receipts for money were applicable to them; but that the present receipt was on an account. Tucker, having been perpetually enjoined from collecting the entire judgment, appealed.
'Wilcox Leigh, for appellant.
—Equity will not relieve, after a judgment, when the defendant might probably have defended herself before the judgment. (Prewitt v. Perry, 6 Tex., 260; Dan. Ch. Pl. and Pr., 1840.) To obtain relief, then, upon any ground existing previous to the judgment, the defendant must show.that she is entitled to a new trial, or a bill of review,'upon the discovery of new matter. (2 Story’s Eq. Jur., §§887, 888.) To do this, she must have used due diligence to discover the- new matter; (2 Story’s Eq. PL, §414; 3 Tex., 49; 4 Tex., 311;) and. if it be a lost instrument, a bona fide and diligent search must have been unsuccessfully made for it in the place where it was most likely to be found. (1 Greenl. on Ev., § 558.) Has the plaintiff in this suit brought herself within these rules for a new trial? We think not. She has shown no diligence or search whatever, either by herself or the deceased; for, by her own allegation, “ she found said receipt among the papers of said O. B. Brackett.”

Opinion:
Roberts, J.
—Admitting that the court below did not err in sustaining the petition, under the exceptions taken to it, there is, we think, a clear deficiency in the evidence to support the judgment of the court. The only evidence for the plaintiff was the record of the proceedings and judgment in the federal court at Galveston, and the receipt of Muller, which reads as follows: "Received, Hew Orleans, 22d October, 1846, from O. B. Brackett, the amount of $420, on account of F. W. Muller." The receipt purports to have been given for money received on account, and not on a note. There is no evidence adduced for the purpose of explaining that it was received for a purpose other than that apparently declared in the receipt. Further, there is no evidence explanatory of loss or finding of this receipt, or any fact developed which constitutes a reason or excuse for not making this defense to one or the other of the two suits that have been instituted for the recovery of this debt from Brackett to Muller. All these matters were put in issue by the general denial of defendant. (Eccles v. Daniels, 16 Tex., 136.)
Wo are not prepared to hold, at this time, that the facts stated in the petition entitle the plaintiff to the relief sought; but, as exceptions to it were overruled, the plaintiff was not required to amend, by a more definite statement of the facts set up, or by adding other facts, to make out her equity. She would have had the liberty of doing so, had the exceptions heen sustained instead of being overruled. Under these circumstances, it will be proper to remand, the cause for further proceedings, the judgment being reversed for a clear deficiency in the proof.
Reversed and remanded.