Court Opinion

ID: 9830288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:04:06.144082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:17.843444
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The only point made by the motion is that this court committed error in not sustaining appellants’ assignment which complained of the action of the trial court in overruling appellants’ general demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition.
Our ruling was based upon the fact that the record failed to sustain the assignment, as it was not shown that the demurrer referred to was presented to or ruled upon by the trial court. In the motion under consideration it is contended that that was not necessary, because, if the plaintiff’s petition 'was subject to a general demurrer, it was so defective as to render the judgment fundamentally erroneous, and make it the duty of this court to reverse the same.
Appellants did not suggest at the original hearing in this court that there was any fundamental error, but merely complained because of an alleged ruling by the trial court upon a general demurrer, when the record failed to show that any such ruling was made. But if it be conceded that, if the plaintiff’s petition was originally subject to a general demurrer, such defect is not cured, and may be raised for the first time on motion for rehearing in this court, and upon the *889ground of fundamental error (which we do not hold), still appellants are not entitled to have the case reversed.
The case originated and was first tried in a justice of the peace court, and was then appealed to and tried hy the county court. Article 2826 of our Civil Statutes authorizes oral pleading in justices’ courts, and does not prescribe what shall be stated in such pleadings ; and it has been held that, when cases are appealed from a justice’s court to the county court, the same rules apply. It has also been repeatedly held that in such cases the same fullness and particularity is not required that is prescribed by statute and held by the courts in cases which originate in district and county courts. It has also been held that, when written pleadings are filed in such cases, it is permissible to supplement the same by oral amendments.
In the instant case the plaintiff filed a written petition in the justice’s court, and another in the county court, but the record does not show that these were not supplemented by an oral amendment, curing what appellants claim as constituting fatal defects in both the written petitions. Furthermore, the written petition in the county court stated the plaintiff’s cause of action with more fullness than has been done in some other justice of the peace cases where the pleadings have been held sufficient on appeal. Therefore, and for all the reasons stated above, appellants’ motion for rehearing has been overruled.
Motion overruled.