San Antonio Water Works Co. v. Maury & Co.
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Bexar. Tried below before Hon. Geo. H. Noonan. This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of appellee upon an account on its face barred by limitations. The defendant pleaded the statute; and by supplemental petition plaintiff replied that the defense of limitations did not apply, for that the accounts declared on were “between merchant and merchant, and therefore not barred by limitation.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from Bexar. Tried below before Hon. Geo. H. Noonan. This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of appellee upon an account on its face barred by limitations. The defendant pleaded the statute; and by supplemental petition plaintiff replied that the defense of limitations did not apply, for that the accounts declared on were “between merchant and merchant, and therefore not barred by limitation.” On the trial it was shown that the parties were engaged in the same business, and that in fact mutual accounts between them existed. The findings of the court are as follows: “The facts proved…
1Opinion of the Court
Collard, Judge.
There is but one question raised by the assignment of error in this case. Plaintiff below sued defendant upon an open account. More than two years had elapsed from the date of the last article charged in the account to the filing of the suit. The defendant pleaded in bar the statute of limitation of two years.
Plaintiff’s original petition charged that defendant, in addition to its business of supplying water to the citizens of San Antonio, was also “ engaged in plumbing, buying and selling plumbing supplies, pipe, etc." Plaintiff replied to defendant’s answer setting up…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Wagner v. RiskeTexas Supreme Court · 1944
- Thompson v. ThompsonTexas Supreme Court · 1951
- Fraser v. GoldbergCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1977
- Wentz v. HancockCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1951
- Petrus v. Cage Bros.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1939
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.