Gunn v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Texas

Gunn v. Smith

135 S.W. 1059, 1911 Tex. App. LEXIS 123

DecidedMarch 29, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 135 S.W. 1059 (Gunn v. Smith) 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

Gunn v. Smith, 135 S.W. 1059, 1911 Tex. App. LEXIS 123 (Tex. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

JENKINS, J.

Appellee contracted with appellant to build for him a brick storehouse in the town of Bartlett. Said contract was made about August 1, 1907, and appellee alleges that said house was to be completed and delivered to him in 90 days, but that it was not completed until about August 10, 1908. He alleges the rental value of said house from the time it should have been completed to the time it was completed to have been $50 per month. A trial before a jury resulted in a verdict and judgment for appellee for $213.33%.

Appellant assigns as error the overruling of his special exception to the appellee’s petition. Appellee alleged the rental value of the house. The exception is to the effect that he did not allege to whom he could have rented it. The allegation was sufficient. A party is not required to plead his evidence.

Appellant also assigns error on the charge of the court. The charge is in substantial compliance .with the law of this case, as indicated by the opinion of this court on a former appeal of this case. Smith v. Gunn, 122 S. W. 919.

The other assignments are to the effect that the verdict of the jury is not supported by the evidence. The evidence amply supports the verdict.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

JENKINS, J.

Appellee contracted with appellant to build for him a brick storehouse in the town of Bartlett. Said contract was made about August 1, 1907, and appellee alleges that said house was to be completed and delivered to him in 90 days, but that it was not completed until about August 10, 1908. He alleges the rental value of said house from the time it should have been completed to the time it was completed to have been $50 per month. A trial before a jury resulted in a verdict and judgment for appellee for $213.33%.

Appellant assigns as error the overruling of his special exception to the appellee’s petition. Appellee alleged the rental value of the house. The exception is to the effect that he did not allege to whom he could have rented it. The allegation was sufficient. A party is not required to plead his evidence.

Appellant also assigns error on the charge of the court. The charge is in substantial compliance .with the law of this case, as indicated by the opinion of this court on a former appeal of this case. Smith v. Gunn, 122 S. W. 919.

The other assignments are to the effect that the verdict of the jury is not supported by the evidence. The evidence amply supports the verdict.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 S.W. 1059, 1911 Tex. App. LEXIS 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gunn-v-smith-texapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack