Killebrew v. Stockdale
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Falls. Tried below before the Hon. D. M. Prendergast. This suit was submitted as an agreed case. The agreement is too lengthy for insertion, and only so much of its contents will be stated as we believe necessary to understand the opinion.
Read the full summary
Error from Falls. Tried below before the Hon. D. M. Prendergast. This suit was submitted as an agreed case. The agreement is too lengthy for insertion, and only so much of its contents will be stated as we believe necessary to understand the opinion. Suit was brought on the 26th of March, 1874, by F. S. Stockdale, as administrator of Peyton Lytle’s estate, in which he prayed for judgment on two promissory notes sot forth in the petition, one dated January 4, 1861, the other January 14, 1861; the first for §5,000, due on the 1st of January, 1862, and payable to the order of D. E. Crossland,…
1Opinion of the Court
Gould, Associate Justice.
Although the petition may have been bad on general demurrer for want of sufficient averments of ownership of the instruments sued on, it was a sufficient commencement of suit on those instruments to stop the running of the statute of limitations. The subsequent amendment of the petition correcting or supplying its defects as a petition on the same notes and mortgages, was not the commencement of a new suit. The judgment is affirmed.
Aeeirmed.
2Cited by27 opinions
- Peek v. Equipment Service Co. of San AntonioTexas Supreme Court · 1989
- Hagenauer v. Detroit Copper Mining Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1912
- Becker v. Gulf City Street Railway & Real Estate Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1891
- Medford v. Red River CountyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1935
- Henderson v. BeggsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1918
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.