De Bus v. Wilson

Court of Appeals of Texas

De Bus v. Wilson

333 S.W.2d 708, 1960 Tex. App. LEXIS 2101

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 11, 1960

DocketNo. 16088

StatusPublished

This text of 333 S.W.2d 708 (De Bus v. Wilson) 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

De Bus v. Wilson, 333 S.W.2d 708, 1960 Tex. App. LEXIS 2101 (Tex. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

RENFRO, Justice.

Based upon a jury verdict and “undisputed evidence”, the trial court entered judgment for attorney’s fee in favor of ap-pellee Wilson against appellant DeBus.

Appellant’s first point of error contends the court erred in failing to sustain his exception that appellee’s cause of action was barred by limitation. It does not appear affirmatively from the face of the petition that appellee’s asserted cause of action is barred by limitation. The court, therefore, did not err in overruling appellant’s exception. 28 Tex.Jur., p. 292, sec. 198.

Appellant next argues the court erred in failing to “charge” the jury on failure of consideration and accord and satisfaction. The transcript does not show any request by appellant for any issue or [709]*709instruction on failure of consideration and accord and satisfaction; hence, he waived such defenses. Rule 279, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Affirmed.

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

RENFRO, Justice.

Based upon a jury verdict and “undisputed evidence”, the trial court entered judgment for attorney’s fee in favor of ap-pellee Wilson against appellant DeBus.

Appellant’s first point of error contends the court erred in failing to sustain his exception that appellee’s cause of action was barred by limitation. It does not appear affirmatively from the face of the petition that appellee’s asserted cause of action is barred by limitation. The court, therefore, did not err in overruling appellant’s exception. 28 Tex.Jur., p. 292, sec. 198.

Appellant next argues the court erred in failing to “charge” the jury on failure of consideration and accord and satisfaction. The transcript does not show any request by appellant for any issue or [709]*709instruction on failure of consideration and accord and satisfaction; hence, he waived such defenses. Rule 279, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

333 S.W.2d 708, 1960 Tex. App. LEXIS 2101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-bus-v-wilson-texapp-1960.