Court Opinion

ID: 9654737
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:49:04.340729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:12.987746
License: Public Domain

On Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing and Motion to Retax Costs.
Appellee contends that this is a suit based on a sworn account and controlled by Rule 185, T.R.C.P.; that appellant did not file a sworn denial as required by the Rule and therefore his account was prima facie correct and substantiating evidence was not needed. Hence he asserts we erred in deducting any items for lack of evidence.
Appellee went to trial upon his third amended original petition, filed October 9, 1951. His previous petitions are not in the record. In this third petition appellee sought recovery for $1135.39 for materials furnished and labor performed under the contract of February 7, 1948, as set out in exhibit “A” attached thereto, for $94.30 repairs which he estimated would be made in 1951 and $300 estimated repairs in 1952 and for $500 attorney’s fees.
The pleading reference to Exhibit “A” was in these words “That an itemized statement of said account is attached hereto marked Exhibit ‘A’.”
Such third petition bore this affidavit:
“Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared H. S. Jack, and upon being by me duly sworn on oath deposes and says that he is the Plaintiff named in the foregoing Petition, whose name is subscribed thereto; that such action is within his knowledge just and true, that it is due, and that all just and lawful offsets, payments and credits have been allowed.
“/s H. S. Jack
H. S. Jack, Plaintiff”
Appellant’s trial pleading was its first amended original answer which was filed March 28, 1951, several months before ap-pellee’s third petition was filed. This answer contained many exceptions to appel-lee’s second amended petition, principally on the ground that no itemized account of the sums sued for was contained in the pleading. This answer specially denies that appellants “are indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $1229.69 or in the sum of $300.00.” This answer was sworn to by B. A. Stuffle-beme as follows:
“That he is a defendant named in the foregoing answer whose name is subscribed thereto; that the facts as alleged in said answer are within his knowledge true and correct; that he is authorized to make this affidavit for himself and for L. Sidney Stuffiebeme.”
A jury was empanelled to try the case and a three-day trial ensued resulting in a statement of facts filed in this Court containing 148 pages, the first 37 of which were consumed before appellee rested his case. While the court instructed a' verdict for appellee this was apparently on its own motion as no motion therefor by appellee appears in the record.
There is nothing in the record to show that the parties tried this case as a suit on a sworn account under Rule 185 or in any manner other than a suit on a contract with appellee bearing the burden of proof.
We must decide the case here on the same theory on which it was tried in the court below. 3-B Tex.Jur. 275.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
The motion to retax costs is also overruled. Rule 139, T.R.C.P.; Campbell Cleaning and Dye Works, Inc. v. Porter, Tex.Civ.App., 183 S.W.2d 253 (El Paso, error ref.) ; Thompson v. Gibbs, Tex.Sup., 240 S.W.2d 287.
Motion for rehearing and motion to re-tax costs overruled.