discussing whether sworn pleadings may be considered summary judgment proof and holding "that orderly judicial administration will be better served in the long run if we refuse to regard pleadings, even if sworn, as summary judgment evidence"
How later courts described this case
- discussing whether sworn pleadings may be considered summary judgment proof and holding "that orderly judicial administration will be better served in the long run if we refuse to regard pleadings, even if sworn, as summary judgment evidence"
- stating similarity in trial and summary judgment proceedings that both depend on independently produced evidence
- “Pleadings simply outline the issues; they are not evidence, even for summary judgment purposes.”
- holding that pleadings cannot be regarded as summary judgment evidence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WALKER, Justice
(concurring).
While I concur in the judgment rendered in this case, I would not go out of my way, as the Court does, to hold that a verified pleading may never constitute proof in a summary judgment proceeding. That question is not squarely presented for decision here. In' support of the contention that it is a holder in due course, Surety relies solely upon the allegations of the petition, verified by its attorney, that it acquired the note for a valuable consideration and became a holder in due course. These allegations are mere conclusions, expressly authorized for pleading purposes but unacceptable as proof in summary judgment proceedings. Rules 45 and 166-A, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; Associates Discount Corp. v. Rattan Chevrolet, Inc., Tex. Sup., 462 S.W.2d 546 .
If a live pleading states facts in sufficient detail and is verified by one who clearly has personal knowledge of the facts and is clearly competent to testify to the matters *546 stated, it is my opinion that the pleading should be given the same effect as any other affidavit filed in the case.
REAVLEY, J., joins in this concurring opinion.