Goddard MacHinery Co. v. Industrial Equipment Repairs, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Goddard MacHinery Co. v. Industrial Equipment Repairs, Inc.

351 S.W.2d 371, 1961 Tex. App. LEXIS 2718

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 26, 1961

Docket3944

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 351 S.W.2d 371 (Goddard MacHinery Co. v. Industrial Equipment Repairs, Inc.) 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

Goddard MacHinery Co. v. Industrial Equipment Repairs, Inc., 351 S.W.2d 371, 1961 Tex. App. LEXIS 2718 (Tex. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

WILSON, Justice.

Plaintiff sued on a verified account. Defendant’s unverified answer pleaded pay *372 ment and accord and satisfaction. ■ The court concluded that in the absence of verified denial under Rule 185, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant was “not entitled to offer any defense as pleaded”, withdrew the case from the jury and rendered judgment on the pleadings for plaintiff.

This was error. Even in the absence of a sworn denial, under the Rule, defendant’s pleaded defenses in the nature of confession and avoidance were available. Yelton v. Bird Lime & Cement Co., Tex.Civ.App., 161 S.W.2d 353, syl. 6, writ ref. w. m.; J. M. Radford Gro. Co. v. Porter, Tex.Civ. App., 17 S.W.2d 145, 147, writ dis.; Glasco v. Frazer, Tex.Civ.App., 225 S.W.2d 633, 635, writ dis.; McConnon & Co. v. Klenk, Tex.Civ.App., 11 S.W.2d 222, 223; American Druggists Synd. v. Holt Drug Co., Tex.Civ.App., 272 S.W. 508, 509; Queen City Motor Co. v. Texas Auto Supply Co., Tex.Civ.App., 241 S.W. 212, 214 and cases therein cited. Reversed and remanded.

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

WILSON, Justice.

Plaintiff sued on a verified account. Defendant’s unverified answer pleaded pay *372 ment and accord and satisfaction. ■ The court concluded that in the absence of verified denial under Rule 185, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant was “not entitled to offer any defense as pleaded”, withdrew the case from the jury and rendered judgment on the pleadings for plaintiff.

This was error. Even in the absence of a sworn denial, under the Rule, defendant’s pleaded defenses in the nature of confession and avoidance were available. Yelton v. Bird Lime & Cement Co., Tex.Civ.App., 161 S.W.2d 353, syl. 6, writ ref. w. m.; J. M. Radford Gro. Co. v. Porter, Tex.Civ. App., 17 S.W.2d 145, 147, writ dis.; Glasco v. Frazer, Tex.Civ.App., 225 S.W.2d 633, 635, writ dis.; McConnon & Co. v. Klenk, Tex.Civ.App., 11 S.W.2d 222, 223; American Druggists Synd. v. Holt Drug Co., Tex.Civ.App., 272 S.W. 508, 509; Queen City Motor Co. v. Texas Auto Supply Co., Tex.Civ.App., 241 S.W. 212, 214 and cases therein cited. Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

351 S.W.2d 371, 1961 Tex. App. LEXIS 2718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goddard-machinery-co-v-industrial-equipment-repairs-inc-texapp-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack