EN BANC
[G.R. No. 2905. August 3, 1909. ]
LA VIUDA DE SOLER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AURELIO RUSCA., Defendant-Appellant.
Manuel G. Gavieres, and Enrique Llopis, for Appellant.
Thos. D. Aitken, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. Action to Recover Price of Goods, Wares, and Merchandise. — S sold to R certain merchandise. Later R recognized his liability to S. At the time of the trial R introduced certain receipts, all of which showed that they represented payments for merchandise sold by S to R, prior to the time of the sale of the merchandise upon which the action was brought. S had given R credit for all payments made on the merchandise upon which the action was founded. The record clearly shows that the amount of the judgment rendered against the defendant was less than the amount due the plaintiff. The plaintiff not having appealed from the judgment of the lower court, that error will not be corrected.
D E C I S I O N
JOHNSON, J.:
The plaintiff commenced an action in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila to recover of the defendant the sum of P854.24, alleging that the same was a balance due for goods sold and delivered to the defendant by the plaintiff, upon the 31st day of August, 1904.
After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial, the lower court found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum of P600.87, Philippine currency, and half of the costs, and allowed half of the costs to the defendant. From this decision of the lower court the defendant appealed and made several assignments of error.
During the trial the plaintiff attempted to prove that she had sold to the defendant goods, wares, and merchandise to the amount of P1,554.24, and that the defendant had only paid on said account the sum of P700. During the trial the plaintiff also proved by a letter (Exhibit F) that the defendant had acknowledged that he was indebted to the plaintiff.
The defendant attempted to prove during the trial that he had overpaid the account and that there was due him from the plaintiff the sum of P2.51, and presented several exhibits to sustain this contention. This exhibits were made up of various receipts. By reference to these exhibits or receipts it will appear, for example, that Exhibit 1, which was a receipt signed by the plaintiff for the sum of P195.70, was a receipt given for goods sold and delivered in the month of July, 1902, whereas the account upon which the plaintiff sues in the present case was not contracted until the 12th of August, 1902. It will be seen, therefore, that this receipt was given for other goods, wares, and merchandise sold before the date of the sale of the merchandise for which the present action is brought.
An examination of the Exhibits Nos.1 to 10, inclusive, will also demonstrate the fact that they were receipts for goods sold and delivered in the month of February, 1902, about eight months before the sale of the goods constituting the basis of the present action. To defendant also presented a receipt marked
After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial, the lower court found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum of P600.87, Philippine currency, and half of the costs, and allowed half of the costs to the defendant. From this decision of the lower court the defendant appealed and made several assignments of error.
During the trial the plaintiff attempted to prove that she had sold to the defendant goods, wares, and merchandise to the amount of P1,554.24, and that the defendant had only paid on said account the sum of P700. During the trial the plaintiff also proved by a letter (Exhibit F) that the defendant had acknowledged that he was indebted to the plaintiff.
The defendant attempted to prove during the trial that he had overpaid the account and that there was due him from the plaintiff the sum of P2.51, and presented several exhibits to sustain this contention. This exhibits were made up of various receipts. By reference to these exhibits or receipts it will appear, for example, that Exhibit 1, which was a receipt signed by the plaintiff for the sum of P195.70, was a receipt given for goods sold and delivered in the month of July, 1902, whereas the account upon which the plaintiff sues in the present case was not contracted until the 12th of August, 1902. It will be seen, therefore, that this receipt was given for other goods, wares, and merchandise sold before the date of the sale of the merchandise for which the present action is brought.
An examination of the Exhibits Nos.1 to 10, inclusive, will also demonstrate the fact that they were receipts for goods sold and delivered in the month of February, 1902, about eight months before the sale of the goods constituting the basis of the present action. To defendant also presented a receipt marked
