Ettl v. Rowe
Decision Date | 09 December 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 6118,6118 |
Citation | 462 S.W.2d 386 |
Parties | E. J. ETTL, M.D., Appellant, v. John ROWE, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Glenn E. Woodard, El Paso, for appellant.
Yetter, Johnson & Allen, Richard Yetter, James T. Allen and Carl T . Johnson, El Paso, for appellee.
Appellee, John Rowe, as holder, sued appellant on a check drawn by appellant on which payment had been stopped. Judgment was for the plaintiff following a directed verdict. Questions presented on appeal are whether the two-year or four-year statute of limitations applies, and computation of the limitation period if the four-year statute applies.
The check was dated December 8, 1962; payment was refused on December 18, 1962; and suit was commenced on December 12, 1966.
Article 5527, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St., provides for a four-year statute of limitations on 'actions for debt where the indebtedness is evidenced by (or founded upon) any contract in writing.' Article 5526, V.A.C.S., applies to actions, among others, for debt where the indebtedness is not evidenced by a contract in writing.
To support his contention that a check is not a contract in writing within the contemplation of Article 5527, appellant cites the case of Jenkins v. Kimbro, Tex.Civ.App., 380 S.W.2d 189, writ dismissed. This was a suit for alleged fraud in the sale of a stallion, and the holding was that such Action for alleged fraud was governed by the two-year statute of limitations, rather than the four-year statute. A check was involved in that the plaintiff had attached his canceled check to his petition and alleged a written contract and bill of sale, but failed to produce a bill of sale or contract on trial. The court stated in its opinion:
We regard the statement that the check is not a contract in writing within the meaning of Article 5527 as dicta, and, in any event, not the law of Texas. Appellee cites no case in point, and our research has found only one Texas case passing on the exact question presented here--the applicability of the four-year statute to a suit based on the check alone, a payee or holder against the maker on a dishonored check. Woods-Taylor & Co. v. Smith, 288 S.W. 1090 (n.w.h.) was a suit like the situation before us in that the suit was brought by the holder of a check, one to whom the payee had endorsed it, against the maker. In holding the four-year statute of limitations applicable, the court said:
This case was decided in 1926, has no writ history, but is sound law in principle and has been followed by other cases where the facts were similar. It also places Texas in line with other jurisdictions according to an annotation in 139 A.L.R. 1280, statute of limitations applicable to action on check, which states:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cashed v. United Auto. Ins. Co.
...rules as are contracts, [thus] ... these checks were contracts to be performed in Texas and governed by Texas law.”); Ettl v. Rowe, 462 S.W.2d 386, 387–88 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1970, no writ) (refuting assertion that a check is not a contract in writing, and applying statute of limitations ......
-
First State Bank of Green's Bayou v. Tanner
...1281. In a suit brought by the holder of a check against the maker, it was recently held that the four-year statute is applicable. Ettl v. Rowe, 462 S.W.2d 386 (Tex.Civ.App.1970, 70 writ). We hold it applicable in a suit brought by the drawee bank against the maker of a We next consider whe......