First Nat. Bank of Rockwall v. Stephenson
| Decision Date | 08 December 1891 |
| Citation | 18 S.W. 583 |
| Parties | FIRST NAT. BANK OF ROCKWALL v. STEPHENSON. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Brown, Hall & Freeman and Wade & Stroud, for appellant. Mathews & Neyland, for appellee.
This was an action on debt. An attachment was sued out and levied on property, but the only question before this court is whether or not there was a material variance between the note declared on in the allegation in the petition: "That on or about the 11th day of October, 1888, the defendant made, executed, and delivered his certain promissory note in writing," etc.; and the note offered in evidence by the plaintiff, dated October 12, 1888. In every other respect the note was correctly described. On objection by the defendant on the ground of variance the note was excluded by the court. Plaintiff also offered to prove by the defendant, R. H. Stephenson, for the purpose of identifying the note, that he executed and delivered to plaintiff only two notes, — one dated December 3, 1888, and the other dated October 12, 1888, both for $500 each. The suit was brought upon two notes of the above description and an account. This evidence was also excluded. Plaintiff took bills of exception to the action of the court, and has assigned it as error. There was no material variance between the note described in the petition and the one offered in evidence. The allegation is "that on or about the 11th day of October, 1888, the defendant made, executed, and delivered," etc., and not that the note was dated on that day. A note is produced, dated October 12, 1888, which in every other respect is accurately described. A variance between the allegation and proof which ought not to have misled the adverse party to his prejudice is not material. It must be such as to mislead or surprise the opposite party. A rule is adopted in McClelland v. Smith, 3 Tex. 213, which should apply to this case: "That, if the misdescription will tend to mislead and surprise the adverse party, it should be noticed by the court; if not, it may be disregarded." May v. Pollard, 28 Tex. 677; Smith v. Shinn, 58 Tex. 3; Wiebusch v. Taylor, 64 Tex. 56; Lasater v. Van Hook, 77 Tex. 655, 14 S. W. Rep. 270; 2 Greenl. Ev. § 12; Chitty, Bills, 563. We report the case for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jaco v. W. A. Nash Co.
...evidence in this case clearly shows that appellant A. Miles was neither deceived nor surprised by the alleged variance. Bank v. Stephenson, 82 Tex. 435, 18 S. W. 583; Jones v. Davis Motor Car Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 224 S. W. 701. The liability of each member of a partnership as to creditors o......
-
International Harvester Co. v. Campbell
...be raised upon an instruction to the jury. Moffatt v. Snydor, 13 Tex. 628; Huston v. Clute, 19 Tex. 179; First Nat. Bank of Rockwall v. Stephenson, 82 Tex. Rep. 435, 18 S. W. 583; Clark v. Reese, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 619, 64 S. W. That the statute of frauds must in some way be specially interp......
-
Dickson v. Dickson
...date thereof is not a fatal variance. Roberts v. J. B. Colt Co., Tex.Civ.App., 31 S.W.2d 196, writ dism.; First National Bank of Rockwall v. Stephenson, 82 Tex. 435, 18 S.W. 583; Finklea v. First State Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 247 S.W. 320; Smith v. Citizens' National Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 246 S.W......
-
Kent v. National Supply Co. of Texas, 998.
...v. Brown, 85 Tex. 80, 87, 23 S. W. 862; St. Louis, A. & T. Ry. Co. v. Evans, 78 Tex. 369, 370, 14 S. W. 798; First National Bank v. Stephenson, 82 Tex. 435, 436, 18 S. W. 583; Wilkins v. Ferrell, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 231, 30 S. W. 450, 451; Kerr v. Blair, 47 Tex. Civ. App. 406, 105 S. W. 548, ......