Court Opinion

ID: 9831664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:16:28.148399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:36.843269
License: Public Domain

On the Merits.
For convenience, we shall refer to defendant in error as plaintiff, and plaintiffs in error as defendants; that being their attitude in the court below.
Plaintiff sued defendants in the county court at law of Jefferson county, Tex., upon an open account for merchandise properly itemized and verified under article 3712, R. S. Defendants, in their answer, admitted the dealings with plaintiff, as alleged by plaintiff, but alleged that defendant Queen City Motor Company acted as the agent of the plaintiff in handling and selling certain goods, wares, and merchandise, to wit, automobile casings and inner tubes, and that in the course of their dealings said defendant was entitled to commissions, express charges, etc., in the sum of $307.06, which should have been credited upon said account, and that said defendant returned to plaintiff merchandise amounting to the sum of $81.86, which should also have been credited upon said account, making a total credit of $388.90 against said account, and admitted owing plaintiff the sum of $74.56, which said sum defendant tendered plaintiff in settlement, which was refused.
Plaintiff excepted to the sufficiency of defendants’ answer, because same was not verified under article 3712, supra. The court sustained the exception, and defendants declining to amend, were held to be without pleadings, and judgment was rendered for plaintiff. The case is before us on the single assignment of error that the court erred in sustaining plaintiff’s special exception to defendant’s answer.
Article 3712, R. S., under which this suit was brought, provides:
“When any action or defense is founded upon an open account, supported by the affidavit of the party, his agent or attorney, taken before some officer authorized to administer oaths, to the effect that such account is, within the knowledge of affiant, just and true, that it is due, and that all just and lawful offsets, payments and credits have been allowed, the same shall be taken as prima facie evidence thereof, unless the party resisting such claim shall, before an announcement of ready for trial in said cause, file a written denial, under oath, stating that such account is not just or true, in whole or in part, and if in part only, stating the items and particulars which are unjust; provided, that, when such counter affidavit shall be filed on the day of the trial, the party claiming under such verified account shall have the right to continue such cause until the next term of court; when he fails to file such affidavit, he shall not be permitted to deny the account, or any item therein as the case may be.”
Plaintiff’s account, being properly itemized and verified, was prima facie proof of its correctness. The answer of defendants admitted that the goods were purchased by them from plaintiff and at the prices stated in the account. The only respect in which the account was questioned was the omission therefrom of certain credits to which defendants claimed they were entitled. An account verified as required by article 3712, supra, while prima facie proof of its correctness, does not preclude the right of a defendant to deny liability therefor, in the absence of a counter affidavit. It does not preclude such defendant from proving, under appropriate pleadings, that the account has been paid in whole or in part, or from asserting a counter claim against same. Railway Co. v. McTiegue, 1 White & W. Civ. Cas. Ct. App. § 461; Bach Meiss & Co. v. Ginacchio, 1 White & W. Civ. Cas. Ct. App. § 1316; Moore v. Powers, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 436, 41 S. W. 707; Blackwell Durham Tobacco Co. v. Jacobs, 57 Tex. Civ. App. 295, 122 S. W. 66; Alexander Bros. v. Wroe & Geppert (Tex. Civ. App.) 164 S. W. 1055; Selz, Schwab & Co. v. Shipman (Tex. Civ. App.) 230 S. W. 842.
It is believed that the final clause in article 3712, to wit, “ * * * When he fails to file such affidavit, he shall not be permitted to deny the account, or any item therein, as the case may be,” is a limitation only upon defendant’s right to attack the-*215correctness of the account, and does not af-. feet his right, under appropriate pleadings, to prove that the' account has been paid in whole or in part, or to urge a counterclaim against same. See authorities supra.
Because the court erred in sustaining plaintiff’s exception to defendants’ answer, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.