Siegel v. McGavock Drilling Co.
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
REYNOLDS, Justice.
The result of this appeal is determined by the answer to this question: is a take-nothing summary judgment authorized where the exhibits attached to plaintiffs’ sworn account established defendant-movant’s affirmative defense of limitation, to avoid which plaintiffs plead payment by defendant’s written instrument, not as the cause of action on a new promise, but as a sufficient acknowledgment of the account sued on to renew the running of limitation? Texas law dictates an affirmative answer. Affirmed.
Plaintiffs Ruth Siegel and the Estate of Joe W. Siegel, Deceased, filed…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hidalgo v. Surety Savings and Loan AssociationTexas Supreme Court · 1971
- Texas Department of Corrections v. HerringTexas Supreme Court · 1974
- " MOORE" BURGER, INC. v. Phillips Petroleum CompanyTexas Supreme Court · 1972
- Zale Corporation v. RosenbaumTexas Supreme Court · 1975
- Cain v. BonnerTexas Supreme Court · 1917
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Stine v. StewartTexas Supreme Court · 2002
- CA PARTNERS v. Spears, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2008
- Hubert v. Illinois State Assistance CommissionCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1993
- Gabriel v. AlhabbalCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1981
- Neel v. Killam Oil Co., Ltd., Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2002
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.