Licata v. Cappadona

157 S.W.2d 191, 1941 Tex. App. LEXIS 1014
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 13, 1941
DocketNo. 11280
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 157 S.W.2d 191 (Licata v. Cappadona) 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
Licata v. Cappadona, 157 S.W.2d 191, 1941 Tex. App. LEXIS 1014 (Tex. Ct. App. 1941).

Opinion

MONTEITH, Chief Justice.

On April 7, 1932, appellee, Joe Cappa-dona, obtained a judgment against Ed Licata in the county court of Galveston County upon a note for the sum of $500, bearing date June 6, 1929, payable to the order of appellee. On March 26, 1941, appellant, Ed Licata, filed a motion in the county court of Galveston County alleging that said judgment was void for the reason that appellee in his original petition upon which said judgment was based alleged that appellant, Ed Licata, and his wife, Bernada Licata, were jointly liable to appellee and that judgment was rendered against appellant alone.

On motion of appellee the court sustained his general demurrer and special plea-of the four years’ statute of limitation to appellant’s motion. Appellant appeals from the action of the court in sustaining said pleas.

It is now the established law in this state that the four-year statute of limitation, Article 5529, Revised Statutes, which was properly invoked by appellee, interposes an insuperable obstacle to appellant’s maintenance of a direct motion to vacate the judgment rendered against him on April 7, 1932. Levy v. Roper et al., 113 Tex. 356, 256 S.W. 251; Smith et al. v. Lightfoot et al., Tex. Civ.App., 143 S.W.2d 151.

[192]*192It is undisputed that appellant had personal knowledge of the filing of appellee’s suit and of the rendition of said judgment. No attempt is made to excuse the delay in filing said motion to set aside such judgment and no grounds 'for equitable relief are set up which would authorize' this court to find that the four-year statute of limitation was inapplicable.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the trial court will be in all things affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Gann v. Putman
159 S.W.2d 931 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
157 S.W.2d 191, 1941 Tex. App. LEXIS 1014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/licata-v-cappadona-texapp-1941.