E. J. Harwick v. W. M. Bitskie

Court of Appeals of Texas

E. J. Harwick v. W. M. Bitskie

25 S.W.2d 1119, 1930 Tex. App. LEXIS 197

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 20, 1930

DocketNo. 2419.

StatusPublished

This text of 25 S.W.2d 1119 (E. J. Harwick v. W. M. Bitskie) 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

E. J. Harwick v. W. M. Bitskie, 25 S.W.2d 1119, 1930 Tex. App. LEXIS 197 (Tex. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

HIGGINS, J.

Plaintiff in error appeals from a personal judgment obtained against him by defendant in error.

Our conclusions disposing of the questions presented are as follows:

.1. The petition is not subject to general demurrer. The count upon quantum meruit is of itself sufficient to state a cause of action.

2. The judgment is not one by default. The recitals in the judgment show it was rendered after hearing the evidence offered by defendant in error.

3.. The evidence so offered is sufficient to support a judgment based upon quantum meruit.

4. The failure of the court to also render judgment in favor of defendant in error against F. C. Ruth, a codefendant of the plaintiff in error, presents no error of which the latter can complain.

5. The prayer of the petition is sufficient to support the award of interest; and, as to the error of $3 in the amount of the judgment, the maxim de minimis non curat lex should be and is applied. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Kirkpatrick (Tex. Civ. App.) 165 S. W. 500.

Affirmed.

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