Davidson v. Wright

Court of Appeals of Texas

Davidson v. Wright

236 S.W. 776, 1922 Tex. App. LEXIS 372

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 1, 1922

DocketNo. 6324.

StatusPublished

This text of 236 S.W. 776 (Davidson v. Wright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davidson v. Wright, 236 S.W. 776, 1922 Tex. App. LEXIS 372 (Tex. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

KEY, C. X

This motion has been given careful consideration, and our conclusion is that it should be overruled.

[1] The plaintiffs did not sue for a rescission of the contract, nor did they seek any other equitable relief. Their suit was based upon the allegations that they had made a contract with the defendants for the purchase of four acres of land, to be paid for at the rate of $300 per acre, and that as a matter of fact there were only 33/io acres, although they paid for four acres; and they sought to recover $210, which they paid to the defendants in excess of $300 per acre for the land actually deeded to them. It is true that they charged in the petition that the defendants represented to them that the tract of land conveyed contained four acres, but as they only sought to recover the excess which they had paid to the defendants, their cause of action was a debt, within the purview of the statute of limitation, and as the contract, was not in writing, it was barred in two years after the shortage in the land was discovered, and as the suit was not brought within that period, the plea of limitation should have been sustained.

In addition to the authorities cited in our former opinion, we refer to the following cases: Elder v. First Nat. Bank, 42 S. W. 124; Sibley v. Hayes, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 61, 71 S. W. 404; Coleman v. Ebeling, 138 S. W. 199; Sowell v. Hoffman, 182 S. W. 1152; Tex. Co-op. Investment Co. v. Clark, 212 S. W. 245; McEntire v. Thomason, 210 S. W. 563.

[2] In support of our other ruling to the effect that the plea of four years’ limitation included and rendered applicable the two years’ statute of limitation, we refer to the following additional authorities: Morgan v. Bishop, 61 Wis. 407, 21 N. W. 263; Camp v. Smith, 136 N. Y. 187, 32 N. E. 640; Reilly v. Sabater (Sup.) 43 N. Y. Supp. 383; Ramsden v. Catley et al. (C. C.) 142 Fed. 912; Schneider v. Schneider, 118 S. W. 789.

Motion overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

KEY, C. X

This motion has been given careful consideration, and our conclusion is that it should be overruled.

[1] The plaintiffs did not sue for a rescission of the contract, nor did they seek any other equitable relief. Their suit was based upon the allegations that they had made a contract with the defendants for the purchase of four acres of land, to be paid for at the rate of $300 per acre, and that as a matter of fact there were only 33/io acres, although they paid for four acres; and they sought to recover $210, which they paid to the defendants in excess of $300 per acre for the land actually deeded to them. It is true that they charged in the petition that the defendants represented to them that the tract of land conveyed contained four acres, but as they only sought to recover the excess which they had paid to the defendants, their cause of action was a debt, within the purview of the statute of limitation, and as the contract, was not in writing, it was barred in two years after the shortage in the land was discovered, and as the suit was not brought within that period, the plea of limitation should have been sustained.

In addition to the authorities cited in our former opinion, we refer to the following cases: Elder v. First Nat. Bank, 42 S. W. 124; Sibley v. Hayes, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 61, 71 S. W. 404; Coleman v. Ebeling, 138 S. W. 199; Sowell v. Hoffman, 182 S. W. 1152; Tex. Co-op. Investment Co. v. Clark, 212 S. W. 245; McEntire v. Thomason, 210 S. W. 563.

[2] In support of our other ruling to the effect that the plea of four years’ limitation included and rendered applicable the two years’ statute of limitation, we refer to the following additional authorities: Morgan v. Bishop, 61 Wis. 407, 21 N. W. 263; Camp v. Smith, 136 N. Y. 187, 32 N. E. 640; Reilly v. Sabater (Sup.) 43 N. Y. Supp. 383; Ramsden v. Catley et al. (C. C.) 142 Fed. 912; Schneider v. Schneider, 118 S. W. 789.

Motion overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 S.W. 776, 1922 Tex. App. LEXIS 372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davidson-v-wright-texapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack