Adelman v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Adelman v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co.

297 S.W. 863, 1927 Tex. App. LEXIS 661

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 23, 1927

DocketNo. 547.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 297 S.W. 863 (Adelman v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adelman v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co., 297 S.W. 863, 1927 Tex. App. LEXIS 661 (Tex. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

BARCUS, J.

Appellee filed this suit

against appellant on an alleged verified account. The only evidence offered on the trial was the purported verified account, to which appellant objected because it did not disclose any item or article of merchandise sold, but consisted only of some dates and figures, and because same was not in compliance with article 3736 of the Revised Statutes (1925). Appellant assigns error to the action of the trial court in admitting said account as a verified account. We sustain this assignment. The first item on the account was, “March 3, to merchandise per bill rendered, $123.30.” Then follow other dates through March and April, but it is not shown what the items were, and none of the bill is pretended to be *864 itemized. ' An account very similar to this | was passed on directly and held insufficient: in Wall & Carr v. J. M. Radford Grocery Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 176 S. W. 785, and this rule' has been followed by an unbroken line of decisions. Nichols v. Murray (Tex. Civ. App.) 284 S. W. 301, and authorities there cited. | ■ j '

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BARCUS, J.

Appellee filed this suit

against appellant on an alleged verified account. The only evidence offered on the trial was the purported verified account, to which appellant objected because it did not disclose any item or article of merchandise sold, but consisted only of some dates and figures, and because same was not in compliance with article 3736 of the Revised Statutes (1925). Appellant assigns error to the action of the trial court in admitting said account as a verified account. We sustain this assignment. The first item on the account was, “March 3, to merchandise per bill rendered, $123.30.” Then follow other dates through March and April, but it is not shown what the items were, and none of the bill is pretended to be *864 itemized. ' An account very similar to this | was passed on directly and held insufficient: in Wall & Carr v. J. M. Radford Grocery Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 176 S. W. 785, and this rule' has been followed by an unbroken line of decisions. Nichols v. Murray (Tex. Civ. App.) 284 S. W. 301, and authorities there cited. | ■ j '

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 S.W. 863, 1927 Tex. App. LEXIS 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adelman-v-hamilton-brown-shoe-co-texapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack