Long v. Anderson
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Houston. Suit instituted on the lltli of January, 1845, on a due hill dated and due ou the 4th of February, 1839. Judgment'by default. The note sued on was barred by the statute of limitations and by prescription, on tiie principle recognized in tiie cases of Gautier v. Franklin (1 Tex. R., 732) and Hays v. Cage, (2 Tex. R., 501.) The defendant can lake advantage of this defense on error. (Coles v. Kelsey, 2 Tex.
Read the full summary
Error from Houston. Suit instituted on the lltli of January, 1845, on a due hill dated and due ou the 4th of February, 1839. Judgment'by default. The note sued on was barred by the statute of limitations and by prescription, on tiie principle recognized in tiie cases of Gautier v. Franklin (1 Tex. R., 732) and Hays v. Cage, (2 Tex. R., 501.) The defendant can lake advantage of this defense on error. (Coles v. Kelsey, 2 Tex. It., 541; Swenson and others v. Walker's Adni’r, 3 Tex. It., 93.)
1Opinion of the CourtLitscoMB, J.
Tiie suit in this case was commenced by the defendant in error, against the plaintiff in error, on the lltli of January, 13J3, on a note or due bill dated on tiie 4th of February, 1S39, payable immediately. Thorn v.as a judgment by default, there being no appearance or answer by tiie defendant in the, court below. The cause is brought before us on a writ of error, and tiie error assigned is tile giving judgment against tiie defendant, when (lie record shows the cause of action to 'have been barred before tiie commencement. of the suit.
This point lias never been directly decided by this court.…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Harman v. LawlerTexas Supreme Court · 1870