Los Angeles Airways, Inc. v. Lummis
| Decision Date | 18 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. B2335,B2335 |
| Citation | 603 S.W.2d 246 |
| Parties | LOS ANGELES AIRWAYS, INC., Appellant, v. William R. LUMMIS, Temporary Administrator, Appellee. (14th Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Timothy M. Thornton, Robert E. Hinerfeld, David Elson, Pamela S. Miller, Murphy, Thornton, Hinerfeld & Cahill, Los Angeles, Cal., Jack F. Ritter, Jr., Austin, for appellant.
Hugh M. Ray, Karen B. Pettigrew, Andrews, Kurth, Campbell & Jones, Robert H. Roch, Fisher, Roch & Gallagher, Houston, William M. Bitting, Hill, Farrer & Burrell, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before COULSON, SALAZAR and JUNELL, JJ.
Los Angeles Airways, Inc. (LAA) appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of William R. Lummis, Temporary Co-Administrator of the Estate of Howard R. Hughes, Jr., Deceased (Lummis). Suit was filed by LAA on February 4, 1977, after its creditor's claim had been rejected. The suit alleged promissory estoppel, breach of an oral contract with partial performance and fraud and deceit in connection with an alleged agreement made sometime between August 15, 1968 and the fall of 1970 by Hughes, through his associates, to purchase Los Angeles Airways, Inc.
LAA's claims, or variations thereof, have been litigated on several occasions. A final judgment was entered against LAA in Nevada on June 5, 1978 on the ground that the Nevada statute of limitations had run on LAA's claim.
LAA's sole point of error urges that the summary judgment granted in favor of Lummis below was erroneous.
Lummis's motion for summary judgment was predicated on two theories. First that the prior Nevada judgment was entitled to res judicata effect and full faith and credit in the courts of the State of Texas as a matter of law. Second that LAA's cause of action was barred by the Texas statutes of limitation, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. arts. 5526 1 and 5529 (Vernon 1958), because Hughes was legally present in Texas and amenable to service of process prior to the expiration of the statutes of limitation.
Lummis's only summary judgment proof was an exemplified copy of the complaint and decree in the Nevada case.
The judgment of the court below does not state on which of Lummis's two theories the summary judgment was granted. We will, therefore, determine if the summary judgment was proper under either theory.
Lummis contends that the Texas courts must give res judicata effect to the Nevada summary judgment granted in favor of Lummis on the basis that the Nevada statute of limitations had run before the action was instituted. It is well settled that "the statutes of limitation are a part of the remedy, and not of the law affecting the rights." St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Sizemore, 116 S.W. 403, 409 (Tex.Civ.App. 1909, no writ) quoting Ross v. Kansas City S.R. Co., 79 S.W. 626 (Tex.Civ.App. 1904, no writ). Since a statute of limitations question is a matter of remedy and procedure, it is governed by the law of the state in which the action is brought. Hobbs v. Hajecate, 374 S.W.2d 351 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1964, writ ref'd). Texas will look to its own statute of limitations, and the Nevada summary judgment based on limitations had no res judicata effect on a Texas court. The summary judgment granted below was not proper if based on Lummis's res judicata theory.
LAA, in its Brief in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, urged that the Texas tolling statute, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5537 (Vernon 1958) prevented the statute of limitations from running against Hughes while he was absent from the state. This contention is based on LAA's claim that Hughes was a Texas domiciliary at all times pertinent to the litigation. If Hughes were a Texas domiciliary at all times pertinent to the litigation, article 5537 would operate to toll the statute of limitations under the holding in Stone v. Phillips, 142 Tex. 216, 176 S.W.2d 932 (1944)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sun Oil Company v. Wortman
...Oklahoma, and Louisiana view their own statutes as procedural for choice-of-law purposes, see, e.g., Los Angeles Airways, Inc. v. Lummis, 603 S.W.2d 246, 248 (Tex.Civ.App.1980), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 988, 102 S.Ct. 1610, 71 L.Ed.2d 847 (1982); Western Natural Gas Co. v. Cities Service Gas ......
-
Shewbrooks v. A.C. and S., Inc., 56014
...East, Inc., 422 F.Supp. 437, 441 (E.D.Pa.1976). Freeman v. Lawton, 353 Pa. 613, 46 A.2d 205 (Pa.1946). Texas Los Angeles Airways, Inc. v. Lummis, 603 S.W.2d 246 (Tex.Civ.App.1980). Washington Sobo v. Sobo, 28 Wash.App. 766, 626 P.2d 520 Texas has carried the rule of applying her own statute......
-
Methodist Healthcare-Olive Branch Hosp. v. McNutt
...it is not a judgment deserving full faith and credit from sister states. Cummings , 390 F. Supp. at 1255 ; Los Angeles Airways, Inc. v. Lummis , 603 S.W.2d 246 (Tex. Civ. App.1980). Rule 41(b) describes the effect of such a dismissal within the state where it was entered; Rule 41(b) does no......
-
Wyatt v. Lowrance
...if the nonresident was present in Texas at all times pertinent to the litigation. Los Angeles Airways, Inc. v. Lummis, 603 S.W.2d 246, 248 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.) cert. denied, 455 U.S. 988, 102 S.Ct. 1610, 71 L.Ed.2d 847 (1982) (citing Stone v. Phillips, 14......