Loftus v. Green

Court of Appeals of Texas

Loftus v. Green

153 S.W. 1198, 1913 Tex. App. LEXIS 636

DecidedJanuary 23, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 153 S.W. 1198 (Loftus v. Green) 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

Loftus v. Green, 153 S.W. 1198, 1913 Tex. App. LEXIS 636 (Tex. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

HARPER, C. J.

This is a suit by L. S. Green against T. F. Loftus for the recovery of $332.50, the balance due upon a verbal contract between the parties, under which plaintiff architect was to prepare plans for the erection of a two-story brick building in the city of Houston, procure bids therefor, and to superintend the construction thereof. The appellant’s first and second assignments of error raise the same question, viz.: The court erred in overruling defendant’s first and second special exceptions to plaintiff’s second amended original petition. The exceptions charged that the said pleading-set up a new cause of action, and, if so, the petition upon its face showed that the same was barred by the two-year statute. These questions were adjudicated by the Court of Civil Appeals of the Fourth Supreme Judicial District (Green v. Loftus, 132 S. W. 502) and the-Court of Civil Appeals of First District, 104 S. W. 396, holding contrary to appellant’s contentions. We concur in their opinion; therefore overrule the assignments. The third assignment complains of the court’s charge, and the fourth assigns error in the refusal of special charge-No. 3; and the fifth and sixth charge error in. court’s failure to charge as suggested by appellant’s special charges Nos. 2 and 3. We find' no error in the charge of the court as given, and. cannot agree that it was error for the court to-refuse the special charges requested by the defendant. All the assignments are therefore overruled, and the judgment of the lower court affirmed.

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

HARPER, C. J.

This is a suit by L. S. Green against T. F. Loftus for the recovery of $332.50, the balance due upon a verbal contract between the parties, under which plaintiff architect was to prepare plans for the erection of a two-story brick building in the city of Houston, procure bids therefor, and to superintend the construction thereof. The appellant’s first and second assignments of error raise the same question, viz.: The court erred in overruling defendant’s first and second special exceptions to plaintiff’s second amended original petition. The exceptions charged that the said pleading-set up a new cause of action, and, if so, the petition upon its face showed that the same was barred by the two-year statute. These questions were adjudicated by the Court of Civil Appeals of the Fourth Supreme Judicial District (Green v. Loftus, 132 S. W. 502) and the-Court of Civil Appeals of First District, 104 S. W. 396, holding contrary to appellant’s contentions. We concur in their opinion; therefore overrule the assignments. The third assignment complains of the court’s charge, and the fourth assigns error in the refusal of special charge-No. 3; and the fifth and sixth charge error in. court’s failure to charge as suggested by appellant’s special charges Nos. 2 and 3. We find' no error in the charge of the court as given, and. cannot agree that it was error for the court to-refuse the special charges requested by the defendant. All the assignments are therefore overruled, and the judgment of the lower court affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 S.W. 1198, 1913 Tex. App. LEXIS 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loftus-v-green-texapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack