Court Opinion

ID: 9830822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:31:53.463379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:27.295852
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant raises no new matters in his motion for rehearing, except as to our failure to sustain his second assignment, which relates to the question of the jury taking with them in their retirement the sworn account sued upon and attached to appellee’s petition. This was not error. The sworn account was part of the petition relied on in this case. Its verification made it prima facie evidence of appellee’s cause of action. The denial under oath of the account did not affect the pleadings, but merely placed the burden upon appellee of proving its claim. No objection was made‘to it as a part of the pleadings. It was not introduced in évidence as a written document or written evidence. No part of it was excluded by the trial judge. The verification portion of the account is not documentary evidence of the account itself, but by such verification it merely relieves the pleader of the necessity of making formal proof of the account. Appellee swore to the account in question and made proof that it was as set forth in the petition. The verified account was a portion of the petition in this case, and as such was entitled to be taken by the jury in their retirement, under article 1957.
That portion of our opinion relating to this question, wherein we stated that ihe trial court should have pasted over the verification portion of the account, or torn it off, is not really necessary to a decision in this case. However, as corrected, it will be permitted to stand as a part of our opinion.
The motion for new trial is overruled.
Motion overruled.