Johnson v. Tindall
Decision Date | 28 November 1913 |
Citation | 161 S.W. 401 |
Parties | JOHNSON v. TINDALL. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Nacogdoches County Court; Geo. F. Ingraham, Judge.
Action by C. H. Tindall against Calvin Johnson and another, begun in Justice Court and appealed by defendant to the County Court. From a judgment for plaintiff, the named defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Blount & Strong and J. M. Marshall, all of Nacogdoches, for appellant. V. E. Middlebrook, of Nacogdoches, for appellee.
This suit was brought by appellee against the appellant and one Will Allen to recover the sum of $117.50, the value of professional services and medicines rendered and furnished by appellee, a physician, to the wife of said Allen, who is the daughter of appellant. At the time of filing the suit in the justice court, the plaintiff procured the issuance of an attachment against the property of both defendants. In his affidavit for attachment plaintiff swore: The attachment was levied upon two mules belonging to appellant, which he replevied. Appellant answered in the justice court by a sworn denial of plaintiff's claim against him and by a plea in reconvention sought to recover of plaintiff $200 damages for suing out the attachment against him, which he averred was wrongfully, willfully, and maliciously sued out without probable cause. Upon a trial in justice court the following judgment was rendered:
The trial in the county court with a jury resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff against the defendant Allen for $117.50 and against the appellant for said sum, less the sum of $2.50, which the jury found to be the actual damages sustained by appellant because of the wrongful suing out of the attachment.
The plaintiff testified: On cross-examination he further testified: Appellant objected to this testimony and asked the court to withdraw it from the jury because it showed that "the defendant Calvin Johnson did not bind himself primarily to pay said debt but only to become security therefor, and said promise, being verbal and not in writing, would not bind the defendant Calvin Johnson legally to pay said debt." The motion to have this testimony withdrawn from the jury should have...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mogul Producing & Refining Co. v. Leverton
...have been submitted to the jury. Biering v. Bank, 69 Tex. 599, 7 S. W. 90; Parks v. Young, 75 Tex. 278, 12 S. W. 986; Johnson v. Tindall (Tex. Civ. App.) 161 S. W. 401. There are other questions presented, but, as they are not likely to arise upon another trial, we will not discuss For the ......
-
Johnson Co. v. City Cafe
...v. Strawn Merchandise Co. (Tex.Com.App.) 291 S.W. 864, 867; Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Fox, 106 Tex. 317, 166 S.W. 693; Johnson v. Tindall (Tex.Civ.App.) 161 S.W. 401, 403; Ramsey v. Beall (Tex.Civ. App.) 281 S.W. 297; Texas Jur. vol. 17, § 212, pp. 521-523; Tex.Jur. vol. 20, § 25, pp. 234, ......
- Bland & Fisher Lumber Co. v. Scanlan