Davis v. Pinckney
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Bastrop. Tried below before the Hon. A. W. Terrell. Suit by William E. Pinckney against James L. Davis and wife, in a Justice’s Court, to May Term, 1856, on an account, the debit side of which amounted to $122 70, and the credit side to $23 95; the credits consisted of corn got by the bushel from time to time; cash, $11; and account at Floyd’s, $7 70; the entry on the Justice’s docket stated that the suit was brought on “an open account in the sum of $98 75, dated…
Read the full summary
Error from Bastrop. Tried below before the Hon. A. W. Terrell. Suit by William E. Pinckney against James L. Davis and wife, in a Justice’s Court, to May Term, 1856, on an account, the debit side of which amounted to $122 70, and the credit side to $23 95; the credits consisted of corn got by the bushel from time to time; cash, $11; and account at Floyd’s, $7 70; the entry on the Justice’s docket stated that the suit was brought on “an open account in the sum of $98 75, dated Oct. 18th, 1854.” There was a jury trial and a verdict for the plaintiff, July 19th, 1856, for $98 75, “with interest…
1OpinionWheeler, J.
When the judgment in this case was pronounced, some days since, it escaped our attention that the judg*343ment of the Justice embraced interest upon the demand of the plaintiff. Including the interest as found and required to be computed by the verdict in the Justice’s Court, the bond was not in a sufficient amount, by the criterion adopted in King v. Longcope. (7 Tex. 236.) The judgment heretofore rendered in the case at this Term must therefore be set aside and the judgment of the District Court be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- King v. LongcopeTexas Supreme Court · 1851