Court Opinion

ID: 9830157
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:56:16.904024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:14.647823
License: Public Domain

Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
The case of Robinson v. Lingner, l83 S. W. 850, was inadvertently cited in' our original opinion, and is hot in point on the question .there discussed.
Appellant cites ..thé cases of Rockdale Mercantile Co. v. Brown Shoe Co. (Tex., Civ. App.) 184 S. W. 281, and Scofield v. Lilien-*244thal (Tex. Civ. App.) 268 S. W. 1047, which he thinks are in conflict with our holding on original hearing. The first cited case, by Judge Rice of the Austin Court of Civil Appeals, holds that an open account may be founded upon a single transaction. There is nothing in our original opinion contrary to the view expressed by Judge Rice, but we held there and now hold, upon the authority of McCamant v. Batsell, supra, that an open account may not rest upon one or two isolated transactions resting upon special contract. In the absence of any pleading, and in the absence of any statement of facts, we must presume in favor of the judgment that plaintiff below sued upon a transaction resting upon a special contract and that the trial court so found.
Appellant further urges that we erred in finding that the calendars in question in this suit were not shipped until June 30, 1921, ten months after the date agreed upon for delivery. He avers that the findings of fact and conclusions of law inadvertently set the date of the countermanding of the order as being early in April, 1921, when in truth and in fact it was early in April of 1920. The suit was field in the justice court on the 12th day of April, 1921, and citation issued on the same day. Of course,- we are not responsible for the apparent error, or, at least, conflict, in the dates, and state the facts as above set out, for the purpose of being fair to appellant.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.