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…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
The suit was upon an account exhibiting debits and credits, showing the balance claimed to be within the jurisdiction of the Justice. The suit was therefore properly brought in the Justice’s Court. The language of the Opinion in Blankenship v. Adkins, (12 Tex. R. 536,) referred to by counsel, might seem to favor the supposition that because the debit side of the account exceeded the Justice’s jurisdiction suit should have been brought in the District Court. But by reference to the facts of that case, it will be seen that the decision was upon a very different state of case from the present.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Pullin v. ParrishCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1957
- Dalby v. MurphyTexas Supreme Court · 1860
- Fowler v. ThomsenNebraska Supreme Court · 1903