Hall v. Matthews

Court of Appeals of Texas

Hall v. Matthews

119 S.W.2d 164, 1938 Tex. App. LEXIS 120

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 2, 1938

DocketNo. 3698.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 119 S.W.2d 164 (Hall v. Matthews) 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

Hall v. Matthews, 119 S.W.2d 164, 1938 Tex. App. LEXIS 120 (Tex. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

NEALON, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by way of writ of error from a judgment of the County Court of Brewster County sustaining a general demurrer to plaintiff’s (appellant’s) petition. Defendant’s pleadings contained a general demurrer in the usual form and a pleading styled a plea in abatement, which was not filed in due order. The *165 third paragraph of the so-called plea in abatement was sustained by the Court. That paragraph was really a general demurrer, being merely an exception upon the ground that the petition “fails to set out or sufficiently describe or declare upon or allege any obligation or instrument as a basis for his purported or attempted cause of action.” The instrument declared upon was a dishonored check. It was nowhere alleged that defendant executed or delivered the check, nor were any other facts alleged showing liability thereon. Plaintiff declined to amend and the case was dismissed. The judgment of the Court was correct. Further opinion is unnecessary. Tucker v. Higdon, Tex.Civ.App., 115 S.W.2d 973; Associated Indemnity Corporation v. Gatling, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 294.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

NEALON, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by way of writ of error from a judgment of the County Court of Brewster County sustaining a general demurrer to plaintiff’s (appellant’s) petition. Defendant’s pleadings contained a general demurrer in the usual form and a pleading styled a plea in abatement, which was not filed in due order. The *165 third paragraph of the so-called plea in abatement was sustained by the Court. That paragraph was really a general demurrer, being merely an exception upon the ground that the petition “fails to set out or sufficiently describe or declare upon or allege any obligation or instrument as a basis for his purported or attempted cause of action.” The instrument declared upon was a dishonored check. It was nowhere alleged that defendant executed or delivered the check, nor were any other facts alleged showing liability thereon. Plaintiff declined to amend and the case was dismissed. The judgment of the Court was correct. Further opinion is unnecessary. Tucker v. Higdon, Tex.Civ.App., 115 S.W.2d 973; Associated Indemnity Corporation v. Gatling, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 294.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 S.W.2d 164, 1938 Tex. App. LEXIS 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-matthews-texapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack