Williamson v. Heath
108 S.W. 983, 49 Tex. Civ. App. 254, 1908 Tex. App. LEXIS 56
Opinion
— The contract of Williamson was not alone a verbal guarantee that the bull was a breeder, but that he would refund the purchase money, less the value of the bull for beef, upon satisfactory proof that the bull was barren. Appellee had no cause of action until this satisfactory proof was made, and this was not done until within two years of the filing of the suit. There was no unreasonable delay on appellee’s part. We hold that the two years statute applies. The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Williamson v. Heath, 108 S.W. 983, 49 Tex. Civ. App. 254, 1908 Tex. App. LEXIS 56 (Tex. Ct. App. 1908).
108 S.W. 983 (Williamson v. Heath) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Puretex Lemon Juice, Inc. v. S. Riekes & Sons of Dallas, Inc.
351 S.W.2d 119 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1961)
Southern California Enterprises, Inc. v. D. N. & E. Walter & Co.
178 P.2d 785 (California Court of Appeal, 1947)
San Antonio Traction Co. v. Roberts
152 S.W. 455 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1912)