Hoffman v. Korp & Murray Tool Co.

251 S.W. 823, 1923 Tex. App. LEXIS 209
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 3, 1923
DocketNo. 1481.
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 251 S.W. 823 (Hoffman v. Korp & Murray Tool Co.) 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
Hoffman v. Korp & Murray Tool Co., 251 S.W. 823, 1923 Tex. App. LEXIS 209 (Tex. Ct. App. 1923).

Opinion

HIGGINS,’ J.

The Korp & Murray Tool Company sued Mr. and Mrs. Hoffman upon a verified account. The defendants, by their attorneys, answered, and also vouched in T. G. Jackson and Jackson Oil Company, who answered.

Upon trial all parties appeared except Hoffman and wife, who failed to appear either in person or by their attorneys.

Whereupon judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff against the Hoffmans and in favor of the cross-defendants upon the cross-action, the judgment reciting that *824 It was rendered alter hearing the pleadings and evidence. 'Motion for new trial was filed in due time by Hoffman* and wife, setting up the reasons for their failure to appear and the failure of their attorney and that they had a good defense.

The action of the court in overruling the motion for new trial presents no error because: First, the excuse shown for their failure and the failure of their attorney to appear is insufficient; second, the record fails to show the evidence adduced in support -of the motion, and in support of the court’s action it will be presumed that the evidence failed to substantiate the grounds stated.

The assignment complaining of the court’s action in failing to file findings of fact and conclusions of law cannot be reviewed in the absence of a bill of exception to the court’s action in the premises. Cotulla v. Goggan, 77 Tex. 32, 13 S. W. 742; Landa v. Heermann, 85 Tex. 1, 19 S. W. 885; Kennedy v. Kennedy (Tex. Civ. App.) 210 S. W. 581.

The petition upon its face discloses the coverture of Mrs. Hoffman and alleges no facts which would render her personally liable in view of her status as such. The court erred in rendering a personal judgment against her as complained of in the second assignment. Poe v. Hall (Tex. Civ. App.) 241 S. W. 708.

The judgment against Mrs. Hoffman will be reversed and rendered in her favor.

In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.

Reversed and' rendered in part; affirmed in part. ■

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

Related

Musick v. Pogue
330 S.W.2d 696 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1959)
Grice v. Hennessy
327 S.W.2d 629 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1959)
Herrin v. Falcon
198 S.W.2d 117 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1946)
Whisenant v. Thompson Bros. Hardware Co.
120 S.W.2d 316 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1938)
Womack v. First Nat. Bank of Anson
81 S.W.2d 99 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1935)
Williams v. Jameson
44 S.W.2d 498 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1931)
Cheshire v. Palmer
44 S.W.2d 438 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1931)
Graham v. Carmany
2 S.W.2d 467 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
251 S.W. 823, 1923 Tex. App. LEXIS 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-v-korp-murray-tool-co-texapp-1923.