Ravel v. Haymon Krupp Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Ravel v. Haymon Krupp Co.

206 S.W. 211, 1918 Tex. App. LEXIS 833

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 31, 1918

DocketNo. 873.

StatusPublished

This text of 206 S.W. 211 (Ravel v. Haymon Krupp 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

Ravel v. Haymon Krupp Co., 206 S.W. 211, 1918 Tex. App. LEXIS 833 (Tex. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

HARPER, C. J.

This action was brought in the justice court by Krupp & Co., against Sam Ravel, upon an account for $118.61, for merchandise sold and delivered.

Defendant pleaded payment in Villa money and set up written receipt, which by express terms accepts it unqualifiedly as payment of the debt. Judgment went for Ravel in justice court, was appealed to county court, and from judgment there rendered in favor of appellee, this appeal.

*212 4 We glean from the record that the Villa money was delivered by appellant at a discount in payment of the bill. Appellee contends that it was received conditioned upon its being genuine money of the Pancho Villa issue and that it proved to be counterfeit.

Appellant urges:

(1) That there were no pleadings to support the judgment under the conclusion of law by trial court that it was counterfeit.

(1) Where pleadings are oral in justice court, and no record made upon appeal, the presumption is that they were consistent with the rulings of the trial court. Railway Co. v. Goodman, 189 S. W. 326.

(2) That there was no evidence to establish that the money was counterfeit.

(3) That the only evidence adduced concerning its being counterfeit was hearsay, and its admission objected to for that reason.

[2, 3] These assignments must be sustained. Substantially, the whole of the testimony offered in proof of its being counterfeit is:

“That upon receipt of the bills they were taken to Juarez, Mexico, to be hypothecated for their exchange value in United States currency; that upon presenting them the collector of customs of the port declared them counterfeit, confiscated them, and refused to return them.”

The admission of this testimony was properly and timely objected to, for the reason that it was hearsay, and the objection overruled by the court. This ruling was error, for which the cause must be reversed and remanded, for, without this, in view of the written receipt accepting the money as payment, there is no evidence to support the finding that it was counterfeit.

Reversed and remanded.

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