Court Opinion

ID: 9833868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:06:35.842549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:08.218271
License: Public Domain

On Mbtion for Rehearing.
In our original opinion we held that the testimony, by deposition, of the witness ■ Henry Heck, shipping clerk for defendant in error, with reference to a list of items alleged to have been sold and shipped to the Construction Company by ■ the defendant in error, attached to his answers, was properly admitted in evidence. This testimony was in substance as follows:
“This is a duplicate of the statements made right off the original copy that I made of all the material that was shipped for this job, with exception of the last two items of ‘brass thresholds,’ dated August 22, 1913. The numbers on the left-hand side columns are numbers of dray tickets, which I made out at the time of loading the goods. After loading this material on the wagons and delivering it to the railroad company, I then got bills of lading from the railroad company for this material for shipment to the JEtna Engineering & Construction Company at Houston, Tex., for the Eox job. I acquired it [items of shipment] as part of my duties as shipping clerk for Christopher & Simpson Iron Works Company, and I made the original list, of which Exhibit A is a copy, at the time of shipping the material, checking off each item and putting it on the dray ticket, as shown by this statement. This list shows all' the material that was shipped for this job. It shows correctly the items of shipment and delivery by Christopher & Simpson to the Railroad Company.”
We also field that tfie testimony of tfie witness Bromeyer, assistant treasurer of tfie Iron Works Company, witfi reference to an itemized statement of the account between tfie Construction Company and tfie Iron Works Company, attached'to fiis answers, was admissible. Tfie testimony of this- witness is set out in the original opinion and will not be recopied here. The account sued upon was verified, and not denied under oath.
Appellants have filed their motion for rehearing, and therein very vigorously attack our holdings in the two particulars stated above. While there has been some confusion as to whether such testimony is admissible under tfie facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that under the authority of tfie best reasoned cases such testimony was admissible. I. & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Startz, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 85, 94 S. W. 207-213; Railway Co. v. Blanton, 63 Tex. 109; Railway Co. v. Burke, 55 Tex. 342, 40 Am. Rep. 808; Railway Co. v. Turner, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 532, 94 S. W. 214.
We see no reason for receding from our former holding. The motion is refused.