Gulf Coast Investment Corp. v. Lawyers Surety Corp.

416 S.W.2d 779, 10 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 400, 1967 Tex. LEXIS 334
Texas Supreme Court·Decided May 24, 1967·No. No. B—138·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ERROR

PER CURIAM

On the authority of Hatcher v. State, 125 Tex. 84, 81 S.W.2d 499, 98 A.L.R. 1213, the Court of Civil Appeals has held that a suit against a notary public and his bonding company for falsifying an acknowledgment is governed by the two-year statute of limitations. 410 S.W.2d 654. We are in agreement with this holding, and accordingly disapprove Standard Accident Insurance Company v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 57 S.W.2d 191 (wr. dis.), in so far. as it is in conflict therewith. The plaintiff here did not attempt to prove when it discovered that the notary’s certificate is false or when the same should have been discovered. No question is presented, therefore, as to when the statute of limitations began to run. The application for writ of error is refused; no reversible error.

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

Gulf Coast Investment Corp. v. Lawyers Surety Corp., 416 S.W.2d 779, 10 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 400, 1967 Tex. LEXIS 334 (Tex. 1967).

416 S.W.2d 779 (Gulf Coast Investment Corp. v. Lawyers Surety Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Opinion No.
Texas Attorney General Reports, 2009
Hinojosa v. Edgerton
447 S.W.2d 670 (Texas Supreme Court, 1969)
Hinojosa v. Edgerton
429 S.W.2d 636 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1968)