Court Opinion

ID: 9833098
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:27:07.011671+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:59.632889
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellant’s counsel seem to labor under the impression that this court held the written receipt issued by the agent of appellee was not admissible in evidence without proof of its execution, and that appellee could question the authority of the agent to execute and deliver such receipt.
A very lengthy argument has been filed combating this supposed holding, and we are referred to numerous cases, including Sawyer v. Dulany, 30 Tex. 479, Lewis v. Lowery, 31 Tex. 664, Railway Co. v. Gober, 125 S. W. 383, Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Booth, 28 S. W. 719, and May v. Pollard, 28 Tex. 677. In view of the provisions of article 1906, Revised Statutes of 1911, there can he no doubt that there is no necessity for proving the execution of such a receipt, in the absence of a sworn plea of non est factum. It is equally clear that, in the absence of a sworn denial of the authority of the agent to execute the same, his authority so to do could not be questioned. The appellee is not here contending, nor has this court held, that it was necessary to prove the execution of the receipt, or that the authority of the agent to execute the same could be questioned. The petition does not declare upon the receipt as evidencing the contract of reshipment, and plaintiff in his evidence did not rely upon same, but proved an oral contract. The written receipt described in the pleading and the proof thereof was merely to the effect that the consideration for the reshipment of the goods had been paid. Under such circumstances, without in any wise impeaching the receipt for the money, it is nevertheless clear that appellee, without any sworn denial of the authority of its agent to make the proven oral contract of reshipment, was clearly entitled to avail itself of such want of authority. Had appellant declared upon the written receipt as - evidencing the contract of shipment as well as the fact of payment, and had his proof sustained such allegation, *361the case of Sawyer v. Dulany would, perhaps, be applicable; but in the instant ease neither the pleading nor the proof falls within the rule enunciated in the case cited. The pleading having in general terms alleged a contract of reshipment, and the proof offered in support of this allegation disclosing that the contract declared upon was an oral one, it therefore necessarily follows that appellee could avail itself of its agent’s want of authority to make such contract without a sworn denial thereof, and this inevitable conclusion is in no wise affected by article 1906, which precludes appellee from questioning the authority of its agent to give a written receipt for the money paid for the reshipment of the goods, and of the rule which authorizes appellant to introduce such receipt in evidence without proof of its execution.
The decision herein reached in no wise conflicts with ■ the cases cited, and the motion for rehearing, as well as the motion to certify the question to the Supreme Court, are both overruled.