G., H. & S. A. R'y Co. v. Gildea

Court of Appeals of Texas

G., H. & S. A. R'y Co. v. Gildea

2 Wilson 204

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 21, 1884

DocketNo. 3054

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Wilson 204 (G., H. & S. A. R'y Co. v. Gildea) 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

G., H. & S. A. R'y Co. v. Gildea, 2 Wilson 204 (Tex. Ct. App. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 271. Damages; article $¡$¡66, R. 8., does not apply to. This suit was upon a claim for §154.50 for damages alleged by appellee to have been sustained by him by reason of delay in the shipment and delivery of a tent, frame and poles, shipped on appellant’s railroad. The claim was sworn to, and introduced in evidence on the trial, and was the only evidence offered in support of plaintiff’s cause of action. It was. objected to by appellant when offered in evidence, and the objection was overruled. Judgment was rendered for the appellee for the full amount of his claim, and for costs. Being for damages, the claim was not such an “open account,” in contemplation of the statute [R. S. art. 2266], as that it could be made evidence by the affidavit of the party sufficient to prove the debt. [W. & W. Con. Rep. §§ 64, 416, 427.]

Reversed and remanded.

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

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 271. Damages; article $¡$¡66, R. 8., does not apply to. This suit was upon a claim for §154.50 for damages alleged by appellee to have been sustained by him by reason of delay in the shipment and delivery of a tent, frame and poles, shipped on appellant’s railroad. The claim was sworn to, and introduced in evidence on the trial, and was the only evidence offered in support of plaintiff’s cause of action. It was. objected to by appellant when offered in evidence, and the objection was overruled. Judgment was rendered for the appellee for the full amount of his claim, and for costs. Being for damages, the claim was not such an “open account,” in contemplation of the statute [R. S. art. 2266], as that it could be made evidence by the affidavit of the party sufficient to prove the debt. [W. & W. Con. Rep. §§ 64, 416, 427.]

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Wilson 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/g-h-s-a-ry-co-v-gildea-texapp-1884.