Doyle v. Glasscock

• Decision Date: 01 January 1859
• Citation: 24 Tex. 200
• Parties: JAMES DOYLE v. GEORGE W. GLASSCOCK.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

24 Tex. 200

JAMES DOYLE

v.GEORGE W. GLASSCOCK.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1859.

The form in which an account is drawn up, and presented before a justice of the peace, will not prejudice the case, as disclosed by the evidence. 4 Tex. 154;7 Tex. 250;18 Tex. 57, 237, 392;20 Tex. 340.

Payment of a voluntary subscription, on the faith of which expense has been incurred, or legal liabilities assumed, may be enforced. 20 Tex. 89;27 Tex. 113.

APPEAL from Travis. Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell.

This suit was commenced by George W. Glasscock against James Doyle, in the court of a justice of the peace, for the recovery of the sum of $30, “due,” as stated in the citation, “by subscription for the insane asylum.”

Judgment having been given against the appellant, by the justice of the peace, he removed the case, by certiorari, to the district court, where judgment was also rendered against him, for the amount claimed by appellee. The facts are stated in the opinion.John T. Allen, for the appellant.

Chandler & Turner, for the appellee.

WHEELER, C. J.

The suit having been brought before a justice, no pleadings, or formal statement, or presentation of the cause of action, was necessary. The form in which the account was drawn up, and presented before the justice, cannot prejudice the right of the plaintiff, upon the merits of his case, as disclosed by the evidence.

The case thus disclosed, we understand to be this: the plaintiff was one of a committee to raise money for the purchase of a site for the lunatic asylum; he applied to the defendant, and received his subscription; and on the faith of it, the plaintiff (or the committee, of which he was one), made the purchase, and he advanced the money, and now calls on the defendant, in consideration of the premises, to pay his subscription.

It will be seen, that the case comes fully within the principle of the decision in the case of Hopkins v. Upshur, 20 Tex. 89. A re-examination of the subject is therefore unnecessary. No question has been made, as to the right of the plaintiff to maintain the action, without joining the other members of the committee; and it is unnecessary, therefore, to discuss that subject. On the authority of the case cited, the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.