Ayres v. Henderson
| Decision Date | 01 January 1853 |
| Citation | 9 Tex. 539 |
| Parties | AYRES, AD'MR, v. J. P. HENDERSON. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
The exception in the statute of limitations as to debtors absent from the States is not confined to those who are temporarily absent, but extends to those who remove with an intention not to return, (Note 95.)
Where a debtor died while absent from the State, but there was no testimony as to the time of his death, it was held that there was no error in refusing to charge the jury that the statute ran from the time of his death. But, quere? If the time of his death had been proved.
Error from Walker. This was an action on a note made by English, the deceased intestate, on the 5th October, 1844, and it became payable on the 1st of November, 1845. The petition alleged that after the execution of the note the maker went to the State of Louisiana, where he resided until he died. Administration was taken out in September, 1850, and the note being presented, duly authenticated, was disallowed.
The defendant pleaded the limitation of four years as a bar to the action.
It was proven that English left Texas early in the year 1845, and resided afterwards in Louisiana; and it was reported that he had died in the city of New Orleans.
The court was asked and refused to charge the jury:
1st. That the exception to the statute does not apply to persons changing their residence from the Republic, but only to citizens who absent themselves without changing their residence.
2d. That the exception of the statute of limitations does not apply in a case where a citizen of the Republic absented himself and died in a foreign country only up to the time of his death, but from his death limitation recommenced.
Judgment was given for the plaintiff, and the cause was brought up to this court on a writ of error.
Yoakum & Campbell, for plaintiff in error.
A. P. Wiley, for defendant in error.
In relation to the refusal of the first charge, we are of opinion that there is no error in the ruling of the court.
There is some plausibility in the assumption that the 22d section of the act was intended to apply only to persons who left the Republic with the intention of returning, and not to those who removed with no such intention, and who, in fact, never did return. But the object of the section was for the protection of domestic creditors. It was to their advantage that their debtors should remain within the limits of the State. And it was intended to protect them from the inconvenience and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Medina v. Tate
...individuals who entered the state, contracted for a debt, and then absconded from the state to escape that obligation. See Ayres v. Henderson, 9 Tex. 539, 541 (1853); Howard v. Fiesta Tex. Show Park, Inc., 980 S.W.2d 716, 722 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, pet. denied) (stating that provision ......
-
Medina v. Tate
...individuals who entered the state, contracted for a debt, and then absconded from the state to escape that obligation. See Ayres v. Henderson, 9 Tex. 539, 541 (1853); Howard v. Fiesta Tex. Show Park, Inc., 980 S.W.2d 716, 722 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. denied) (stating that provision......
-
Wyatt v. Lowrance
...142 Tex. 216, 219-20, 176 S.W.2d 932, 933 (1944); Wilson & Co. v. Daggett, 88 Tex. 375, 377, 31 S.W. 618, 619 (1895); Ayres v. Henderson, 9 Tex. 539 (1853); Jackson v. Speer, 974 F.2d 676, 679 (5th Cir.1992). In Stone, the supreme court if he is actually in the State or is domiciled here at......
-
Cadles of Grassy Meadows II, L.L.C. v. Goldner
...they would be exposed by the absence of their debtors and consequent immunity of the latter from process and judgment." Ayres v. Henderson, 9 Tex. 539, 539 (1853). 15. Cadles and the state argue that the local interest here is an interest merely in making it easier for domestic plaintiffs t......