Legal Opinion
Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Churchill
Court of Appeals of Texas
Decided June 17, 1931No. 3970PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Unless the notes on which the claim presented by appellant to appellee as administratrix was based had been effectively renewed when so presented, they were barred by the statute of limitations of four years, and the administratrix acted within her rights and in the discharge of her duty when she rejected the claim. Article 5527, R.S. 1925; Howard v. Johnson, 69 Tex. 655, 7 S.W. 522; Jackson a. Stone (Tex.Civ.App.)155 S.W. 960.
It appeared in the evidence (1) that on January 19, 1927, F. E. Churchill wrote the holder of the notes a letter in which he (Churchill) stated he was "wholly unable"…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Howard Hume, Administrators, Etc. v. WindomTexas Supreme Court · 1894
- President of the Bank of Alabama v. SimontonTexas Supreme Court · 1847
- Elsby v. LunaTexas Commission of Appeals · 1929
- Howard v. JohnsonTexas Supreme Court · 1888
- Hooks v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1921
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Trautmann Bros. Investment Corp. v. Del Mar Conservation DistrictCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1969
- Standard Surety & Casualty Co. v. WynnCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1943
- Chronerberry v. BartelOhio Court of Appeals · 1940
- Uvalde Rock Asphalt Co. v. Ralls-SchmidtCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1936
- Brian DeRoeck, Melinda Young, and Kathryn Boykin, as Co-Trustees of the Walter A. DeRoeck QTIP Trust, Assignee of Texas Capital Bank National Association v. DHM Ventures, LLC James W. Moritz And Nathan W. Halsey, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2019
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.