Smith v. Reid

I concur in the result reached by the majority but disagree with the reasoning. The majority relies on Jones v. Tetterton, 389 S.W.2d 505 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1965, no writ) and assert that subdivision 14 of article 1995 applies only to causes of action which sound in tort. They misconstrue the holding in that case. The Jones court faced the issue of whether plaintiff there was suing for damages for breach of the contract between the parties or for damages to the land. The court correctly held that the gist of plaintiff’s cause of action was for damages originating from a breach of…