Cotulla v. Urbahn
Texas Supreme Court
Error to the Court of Civil Appeals, Fourth District, in an appeal from Wehb County. Urbahn sued Cotulla and had judgment. Defendant appealed, and on affirmance obtained writ of error. The application was first ^ refused in a written opinion. Subsequently, on a motion for rehearing. the writ of error was granted and judgment reversed and rendered in favor of plaintiff in error. Both opinions are here published.
1Opinion of the Court
ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ERROR.
The note sued on had been due more than four years before the suit was brought and therefore appeared from the original petition to be barred. When the defendant (plaintiff in error) invoked the statute of limitation by exception and plea, the plaintiff (defendant in error) by supplemental petition set up a new promise. The true cause of action was upon the new promise and not upon the original note, according to a long line of decisions, and from this it follows that the purpose of further pleading on the part of plaintiff was to cure a defect in his petition…
2Cited by38 opinions
- First National Bank in Canyon v. GambleTexas Supreme Court · 1939
- Starr v. FergusonTexas Supreme Court · 1942
- John W. Masury & Son v. Bisbee Lumber Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1937
- Squyres v. ChristianCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1952
- House of Falcon, Inc. v. GonzalezCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1979
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.