McAfee v. Edwards

Court of Appeals of Texas

McAfee v. Edwards

254 S.W. 478, 1923 Tex. App. LEXIS 503

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 20, 1923

DocketNo. 2162.

StatusPublished

This text of 254 S.W. 478 (McAfee v. Edwards) 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

McAfee v. Edwards, 254 S.W. 478, 1923 Tex. App. LEXIS 503 (Tex. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

BOYCE, J.

While the account sales was not admissible as original evidence, the plaintiff could refer to it, as he did, to refresh his memory as to the articles shipped, the price, the payments made, etc. H. & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Burke, 55 Tex. 323 (11), 342, 40 Am. Rep. 808; I. & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Startz, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 85, 94 S. W. 213, citing the Burke Case. The evidence thus sustains the judgment, notwithstanding the erroneous method of proceeding in the admission of the evidence. . It is a fair inference from plaintiff’s testimony that the shipments were made om agreed price.

The judgment should have been made to bear interest at the rate of 6 per cent. The error in making it hear 8 per cent, was probably, the result of inadvertence, and would probably have been corrected, if the matter had been called to the trial court’s attention. We will reform the judgment in this respect, but will nevertheless tax the costs of the appeal against the appellant.

Reformed and affirmed.

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

BOYCE, J.

While the account sales was not admissible as original evidence, the plaintiff could refer to it, as he did, to refresh his memory as to the articles shipped, the price, the payments made, etc. H. & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Burke, 55 Tex. 323 (11), 342, 40 Am. Rep. 808; I. & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Startz, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 85, 94 S. W. 213, citing the Burke Case. The evidence thus sustains the judgment, notwithstanding the erroneous method of proceeding in the admission of the evidence. . It is a fair inference from plaintiff’s testimony that the shipments were made om agreed price.

The judgment should have been made to bear interest at the rate of 6 per cent. The error in making it hear 8 per cent, was probably, the result of inadvertence, and would probably have been corrected, if the matter had been called to the trial court’s attention. We will reform the judgment in this respect, but will nevertheless tax the costs of the appeal against the appellant.

Reformed and affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 S.W. 478, 1923 Tex. App. LEXIS 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcafee-v-edwards-texapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack