Kinnard v. Herlock

Decided July 1, 1857

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1857-07-01

<p>It has been more than, once decided, that though the general denial did not put plaintiff upon proof of the execution of his note, it required its production; and that if pleaded, it precluded the plaintiff from taking judgment by default, for want of an answer.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1857-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently November 1977

4 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Hemphill, Ch. J.

¶1Suit on promissory note. Plea, among others, of general denial. On exception, this was stricken out, and the defendant saying nothing further in bar of plaintiff’s demand, it was ordered that the plaintiff have judgment.

¶2This proceeding is properly assigned as error. It has been more than once decided, that though the general denial did not put plaintiff upon proof of the execution of his note, it required its production; and that if pleaded, it precluded the plaintiff from taking judgment by default for want of an answer. (Able v. Chandler, 12 Tex. R. 88; Matossy v. Frosh, 9 Id. 610-613.) The judgment was also excessive, there being no allowance for the payment of twenty dollars indorsed on the note.

¶3Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

¶4Reversed and remanded.