
    Ross v. Breeding.
    The petition in this case, contains no averment that the note sued on was the note of the defendant, nor that he had made the same. * * * That the petition is fatally defective has been settled by the decisions of this Court in Frazier v. Todd (4 Tex. E. 461,) and in Jennings v. Moss (Id. 452,) and acknowledged by the Court, in Jackson v. Marshall and another. (6 Id. 824.)
    Appeal from Fayette. Action on a pomissory note by the appellee against the appellant. The plaintiff alleged, “ That 66 he holds a note (commonly called a promissory note) on one “ Anderson J. Ross, alias A. J. Ross, a resident, &c., for “ the sum of, &c., which said note will be to the Court shown, 66 on the trial of this suit, and is in the words, &c. (Copy of u note payable to Richard L. Breeding, signed A. J. Ross.) “ Petitioner further states that said note became due and pay-u able on the first day of January, 1853, and that the same ^ remains unpaid, although the said Boss, who is hereby “ made defendant, has been often requested to pay the same. 1 Wherefore petitioner prays, &c.” Defendant demurred, and excepted “ generally to the action of the plaintiff in the form and manner as set out in his petition, &c.,” and pleaded a general denial. Demurrer overruled. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal by defendant.
    
      Burns c6 McAshan and Webb & Harcourt, for appellant.
    
      L. F. éi W. B. Price, for appellee.
   Lipscomb, J.

The petition in this case contains no averment that the note sued on was the note of the defendant, nor, ¿bat he had made the same. There was a demurrer to the petition, which was overruled, and defendant appealed. That the petition is fatally defective, has been settled by the decisions of this Court, in Frazier v. Todd (4 Tex. R. 461) and in Jennings v. Moss, (Id. 452,) and acknowledged by the Court, in Jackson v. Marshall and another (6 Tex. R. 324.)

The judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

Be versed and remanded.  