Harrison Mach. Works v. Reigor, Case No. 5262.
| Decision Date | 28 April 1885 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 5262. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
| Parties | HARRISON MACHINE WORKS v. GEO. J. REIGOR. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Tarrant. Tried below before the Hon. A. M. Carter, Special Judge.
The opinion states the facts.
Jas. C. Scott, for appellant, cited: R. S., arts. 3205 and 3216; Fisher v. Phelps, 21 Tex., 556-560;Phillips v. Holman, 26 Tex., 281, 282.
Furman & Steadman, for appellee, cited: Parsons on Bills and Notes, vol. 2, p. 644; Hemp v. Garland, Fisher's Common Law Digest, vol. 3, p. 5487.
Eliza M. Hicks and J. Reigor executed to Harrison & Co. two promissory notes each for $700, one payable January 1, 1879, and the other January 1, 1880, and each containing an agreement to the effect that a failure to pay that note when due should mature both notes.
This suit was commenced upon these two notes more than four years after the maturity of the one first falling due, and the statute of limitations having been pleaded, the question is: Was suit upon the last barred?
That the effect of the agreement was to authorize suit or give a right of action upon the last note at the same time that it could be commenced upon the first cannot be doubted. By the express terms of our statute of limitations it commences to run from the time when the cause of action accrues.
It is immaterial from what cause a note becomes due so far as the right of the holder to enforce it by suit is concerned.
It would seem to follow as a necessary corollary that the maker can, in the one case as in the other, avail himself of any failure to sue within the period of limitation.
The purpose of statutes of limitation is “to compel the settlement of claims within a reasonable period after their origin, and while the evidence upon which their enforcement or resistance rests is yet fresh in the minds of the parties or their witnesses.” Wood on Lim., § 5.
If the holder of a note may, at his option, treat the claim as due at a later date than the maker has agreed that it shall mature, and thus prescribe a different date at which it shall be barred, the evidence for its enforcement may be preserved, whilst that for its resistance may be destroyed, and thus the purpose of the statute be wholly defeated.
In the case of Hemp v. Garland, 45 E. C. L., 519, it was held that though the contract left it optional with the plaintiff to sue or not for the whole debt upon default in the payment of any one instalment of principal or interest, the statute would commence to run from the date of such default upon the whole demand. This is put upon the principle that limitation runs from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gaddis v. Smith, A--11825
...evidence upon which their enforcement or resistance rest is yet fresh in the minds of the parties or their witnesses. Harrison Machine Works v. Reigor, 64 Tex. 89 (1885). On the other hand, the nature of negligence actions of this type is such that it is often difficult, if not impossible, ......
-
Clause v. Columbia Savings and Loan Association
... ... 519; Reeves v ... Butcher, 2 id. 509; Mach. Works v. Reigon, 64 ... Tex. 89; Noell v ... runs against building associations as in case of other ... corporations. (Thomp. B ... Co., 102 Mich. 52; Woodville v ... Harrison, 3 Wis. 360; Johnson v. Turnell, 113 Wis. 468.) ... ...
-
Perkins v. Swain
... ... acceleration clause involved in the last case is, in many ... respects, stronger than the one ... Sargent, 112 Ind. 484, 14 N.E. 466; Harrison Machine ... Works v. Reigor, 64 Tex. 89; First ... ...
-
Keene Five Cent Sav. Bank v. Reid
...made the following reference to the case last cited: 'A leading case in the Supreme Court of Texas on this subject is Harrison Machine Works v. Reigor, 64 Tex. 89. This was an action upon promissory notes payable different dates, each containing an agreement to the effect that 'a failure to......