
    PIERCE OIL CORPORATION v. WATSON.
    (No. 2598.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.
    June 8, 1922.)
    Account, action on <8=12 — No error in refusing to admit verified account as prima facie evidence of debt where defendant’s answer sufficiently impeached correctness thereof.
    Where defendant filed an answer sufficient to impeach the correctness of a verified account sued on, the court did not err in refusing to admit such account as prima facie evidence of the debt.
    Appeal from Fannin County Court; A. P. Bolding, Judge.
    Action by the Pierce Oil Corporation against C. M. Watson. From a judgment for plaintiff in an amount less than that
    sued format appeals.
    Affirmed.
    H. G. Evans, of Bonham, for appellant.
    Cunningham, McMahon & Lipscomb, of Bonham, for appellee.
   HODGES, J.

The appellant sued the ap-pellee on a verified account, claiming an indebtedness of $320.82; The claim was based upon a sale by the appellant to the appellee of a stated number of gallons of gasoline. The appellee answered by a verified denial, asserting that the account sued on was incorrect in that it contained an overcharge for 681 gallons of gasoline at 29 cents per gallon, amounting to the sum of $197.49. The remainder of the account was admitted to be correct. In a trial before the court a judgment was rendered in favor of the appellant. for the amount sued for less the shortage pleaded. The evidence sustains the judgment rendered. There was no error in refusing to admit the verified account as prima facie evidence of the debt; the appel-lee having filed an answer sufficient to impeach the correctness of the account.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      <g=For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBISR in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     