Court Opinion

ID: 9831277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:59:09.112194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:33.451578
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The plaintiff’s cause of action was for $130 and 50 cents per day for 154 days, making $207 sued for by the amended pleading. The $40 pleaded as due defendant was not claimed to be a payment upon the $130, but was an independent debt, and necessarily pleaded as a cross-action. The fact that plaintiff admitted that such Gross-action was meritorious would not have the effect of crediting upon his cause of action the sum due upon the cross-action. It was not pleaded as a credit, nor can it now be made a credit upon plaintiff’s claim. Gimbel & Son v. Gompreeht & Co., 89 Tex. 499, 35 S. W. 470. If the certified copy of the answer attached to. the motion for rehearing could, as stated, be considered, as it cannot be, as it is no part of the record before us, it would not aid appellee, because therein the defendant did not seek to credit $40 on plaintiff’s claim, but contended there was due him $51.20, and sought to credit his claim with $50 he admitted to be due plaintiff on a settlement of their respective interests in a crop, and to recover the sum of $1.20 from plaintiff. In said answer he denied that he owed plaintiff the $130 sued for, and if plaintiff could credit on his claim the sum sued for by defendant, the credit would have been $1.20. The claims asserted by the respective parties were not such as operated to extinguish each other until ascertained and applied by a court, and there was no agreement by defendant that he owed plaintiff any sum upon which there could be applied as a .credit any sum claimed by him. The. amount therefore, of plaintiff’s demand was beyond the jurisdiction of the justice’s court, and the motion for a rehearing is overruled.