White v. Dienger

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Fly
• Citation: White v. Dienger, 25 S.W. 666 (Tex. App. 1894)
• Decision Date: 21 February 1894
• Parties: WHITE v. DIENGER.

25 S.W. 666

WHITE v. DIENGER.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

February 21, 1894.

Appeal from Kendall county court; F. W. Schroeffe, Judge.

Action by Joe Dienger against L. White upon an order accepted by defendant. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

C. H. Clifford, for appellant. Eugene Digges and L. C. Grothaus, for appellee.

FLY, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court of Kendall county for $175. Appellant was a renter on the land of L. Brandenstein, who owed appellee. Appellant entered into a written contract with the duly-authorized agent of Brandenstein, who had removed from Kendall county, to pay $175 for the rent of Brandenstein's land. Brandenstein had instructed his agent to pay the rent money to appellee, to be placed as a credit on his indebtedness to appellee. The rent became due, and the agent gave appellee an order on appellant for it. When the order was presented, appellant admitted its correctness, and verbally accepted it and agreed to pay it, but failed to do so. Appellee sued him, and attached his property. He does not deny that the debt was not just and due, and does not complain of the attachment proceedings, but prosecutes this appeal because it was not shown that appellee was his landlord nor that the suit was to recover rent, because he had never promised to pay Brandenstein's debt to appellee, that he was not indebted to appellee, and because the court had refused to allow him to testify as to a hay transaction between him (appellant) and his partner. The brief has neither propositions, statements, nor authorities. There is no merit in the appeal. When appellant...