Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

25 Tex. 382

Whitaker v. Record

Texas Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1860

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1860-10-15

Error from Collin. The case was tried before Hon. Hat. M. Burford, one of the district judges. This was a suit upon a promissory note executed by Samuel Whitaker, and indorsed hy David Stiff* John W. Haynes, and William Wilson. The petition of Record in the court below did not allege that the note was due, or that payment had been demanded. The returns of the sheriff were irregular. At the trial judgment was taken hy default.

Decided 1860-10-15

Wheeler, C. J.

¶1—The petition is manifestly insufficient to support a recovery. It contains no averment of any breach of contract on the part of the defendants. It is not enough that the plaintiff is the holder of a note which the defendants are liable to pay; it must appear by averment that they have violated their contract, by refusing to make payment of the note agreeably to their undertaking,' in order that the petition may show a cause of action. It is essential, to constitute the statement of a cause of action, that it appear, by averment, not only that the plaintiff has a right, but that the defendant has done or omitted some act or duty in derogation of that right.

¶2Moreover, there is no sufficient service upon any of-the defendants.

¶3Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

/25/tex/382 · .json · Public domain