Court Opinion

ID: 9829708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:32:56.212919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:04.656829
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee has filed a motion for rehearing in which he contends that we were in error in holding that his petition was ■subject to general demurrer for failure to allege that the goods, wares, merchandise, ■etc., were furnished to appellant by appel-lee; and further contending that placing a liberal construction on the petition, as -we are required to do when it is assailed only by a general demurrer, we should ■infer that appellee intended to allege that -such goods, wares, merchandise, etc., were •furnished by appellee.
This might be true if it were not for -the sworn account attached to appellee’s .petition affirmatively showing that the .goods, wares, merchandise and services rendered were not furnished by appellee, ■but by various and sundry persons. Some ■of the items in the account read as follows :
“March 19 Lumber Agnue Lumb. Co. $16.45
“ 19 A. Y. Seinz Hauling fruit. 12.00
“ 19 O. R. Kilgore Instalation acct. 20.00
“ 22 Lumber Agnew Lbr. Co. 5.95
April 1 Express . 5.43
“ 9 Harvesting fruit Augustine. 94.22”
These items selected at random from •the sworn account show conclusively that they represent items furnished by some •one other than appellee. The verified account is attached to the petition marked “Exhibit A” and made' a part of the peti-tion
Appellee does not allege that he is an assignee of this account or that he is entitled to recover on same for some other reason.
We adhere to our original ruling that the petition is subject to general demurrer.
We have carefully considered appellee’s motion for a rehearing and the same is overruled.