Glenn v. Steele
| Decision Date | 26 May 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 19596.,19596. |
| Citation | 61 S.W.2d 810 |
| Parties | GLENN v. STEELE et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Kirby, King & Overshiner and Frank E. Smith, all of Abilene, for plaintiff in error.
J. B. Lewright, of San Antonio, and Cunningham & Oliver, of Abilene, for defendants in error.
The facts and issues of this case are fully stated in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, 57 S.W.(2d) 908.
The suit, which is based on fraud, was filed in the district court of Taylor county, Tex., by Dr. R. P. Glenn against Wallace Steele and Delaware Punch Company of America, a corporation. Trial in the district court with a jury resulted in a verdict and judgment for Dr. Glenn. On appeal the Court of Civil Appeals reversed this judgment and rendered judgment for the defendants. Dr. Glenn brings error.
We dismiss this application for want of jurisdiction (dismissed W. O. J.), by authority of article 1728, R. C. S. 1925, as amended (Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. art. 1728), because we believe that the evidence shows as a matter of law that the alleged fraud made the basis of the recovery herein sought by Dr. Glenn was discovered by him more than two years prior to the filing of this suit. In this condition of the record the Court of Civil Appeals was correct in reversing the judgment of the district court in favor of Dr. Glenn, and rendering judgment for Steele and Delaware Punch Company of America on their plea of Two years' limitation.
We do not believe there is any material confusion or conflict in the decisions of this court relating to when the period of limitation begins to run in fraud actions. The rule is that limitation begins to run from the time of the discovery of the Fraud, or from the time it might have been discovered by the use of reasonable diligence. Stated in another form, fraud will prevent the running of the statute of limitations until discovered, or by reasonable diligence might have been discovered. Knowledge of facts that would cause a reasonably prudent person to make inquiry which would lead to a discovery of the fraud is in law a knowledge of the fraud. Tex....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gulf Atlantic Life Ins. Co. v. Hurlbut
...the fraud. Knowledge of such facts is in law knowledge of the fraud itself. White v. Bond, 362 S.W.2d 295 (Tex.1962); Glenn v. Steele, 141 Tex. 565, 61 S.W.2d 810 (1933). Accordingly, we review the pleadings and evidence to determine what facts were within plaintiffs' knowledge on or before......
-
Maher v. Zapata Corp.
...and not the four year residual statute, article 5529. See also Quinn v. Press, 135 Tex. 60, 140 S.W.2d 438 (1940); Glenn v. Steele, 141 Tex. 565, 61 S.W.2d 810 (1933); Hemphill County v. Rathjen, 389 S.W.2d 365 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1965, no writ); Las Mendozas, Inc. v. Powell, 368 F.2d 4......
-
Gaddis v. Smith, A--11825
...438, 128 A.L.R. 757 (1940); American Indemnity Co. v. Ernst & Ernst, 106 S.W.2d 763 (Tex.Civ.App.1937, writ ref'd) ; Glenn v. Steele, 141 Tex. 565, 61 S.W.2d 810 (1933). In an action for damage to plaintiff's land from water seepage, it has been held that the cause of action accrues when th......
-
Caprito v. Grisham-Hunter Corporation
...235 S.W. 559; Thrower v. Brownlee, Tex.Com. App., 12 S.W.2d 184, 185; Krueger v. Krueger, Tex.Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 684, 688. In Glenn v. Steele, 61 S.W.2d 810, the Supreme Court of Texas in considering the time when limitation begins to run against a suit for damages for fraud, said: "Knowle......