Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42. Page: 342

342 SWANN V. MUSCHKE. [Term of
Argument for the appellant.
ground that it had no constitutional jurisdiction in such cases.
(See authorities there cited.)
For want of jurisdiction the case is dismissed.
Dismissed.
Justice Moore did not concur.
R. B. SWANN v. G. MuscixKE & Co.
1. PLEADING. A replication to a plea of payment supported by a receipt
signed by plaintiff, alleging fraud or mistake in the receipt, is good
without being supported by affidavit.
2. RECEIPT MAY BE EXPLAINED OR CONTRADICTED. A written receipt for
money or property may be explained or contradicted by parol evidence.

APPEAL from Harris. Tried below before the Hon. James
Masterson.
The facts appear in the Opinion.
Crank & lebb, for appellant.
No proper foundation was laid for the admission of any testimony
impeaching the receipt, and all such evidence should
have been excluded under the objection of the defendant.
(See Paschal's Digest, Article 1443.) It is upon these sections,
and the interpretation given to it by our courts, that tile
motion to exclude the testimony was founded. This article
furnishes a rule regulating the evidence, and not the pleading.
(Robinson v. Brinson, 20 Texas, 440; Drew v. Garrison, 12
Texas R., 279-282; Kelly v. Kelly, 12 Texas R., 454 ; Lee v.
Hamilton, 12 Id., 417.)
In Lee v. Hamilton, it is held that a plea denying a partnership
not sworn to, as required by the statute, was properly
treated by the court as. a nullity.