Gulf Coast Investment Corp. v. Lawyers Surety Corp.

416 S.W.2d 779, 10 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 400, 1967 Tex. LEXIS 334
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedMay 24, 1967
DocketNo. B—138
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 416 S.W.2d 779 (Gulf Coast Investment Corp. v. Lawyers Surety Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
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).

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
416 S.W.2d 779, 10 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 400, 1967 Tex. LEXIS 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gulf-coast-investment-corp-v-lawyers-surety-corp-tex-1967.