Hobbs v. Hajecate
| Decision Date | 08 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 11145,11145 |
| Citation | 374 S.W.2d 351 |
| Parties | Lloyd G. HOBBS, Appellant, v. Thomas H. HAJECATE et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Franklin Wilder, Fort Smith, Ark., Butler, Binion, Rice & Cook, Tom Alexander, Houston, for appellant.
R. Shearn Smith, L. L. Warner, Houston, for appellees.
This was an action by appellant, an accommodation endorser, to recover money based upon a written promissory note, payable to the 1st National Bank of Ft. Smith, Arkansas, executed jointly and severally by appellees in Arkansas to be wholly performed in Arkansas. Appellees defaulted Appellant was required to pay and was forced to bring this suit in Texas in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the defendants. The trial court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment on the pleadings, holding the action barred by Art. 5527, Vernon's Ann.Tex.St., the Texas four year Limitation Statute. Appellant's Motion for summary judgment was overruled.
This appeal is based on the error of the trial court in granting appellees' motion for summary judgment.
This action was on a promissory note brought against appellees as alleged co- makers by appellant as an allied endorser in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, on January 4, 1963.
An allegation was made that the last payment on the note was made on February 8, 1958.
Appellees moved for a summary judgment on the pleadings and the court granted the motion holding that the cause of action was barred by the Limitation Statute of Texas as shown by the petition on its face.
Appellees plead limitations as a bar and general denial.
Appellant filed his affidavit in opposition that part payment of a note by one joint and several debtor before action on the note is barred by limitations has the effect under the laws of Arkansas of preventing action on the note from being barred for a period of 5 years and moved the court to take judicial notice of the laws of Arkansas. Rule 184a Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Appellant's position is that when the note was endorsed to him on April 30, 1958, the partial payment of February 8, 1958, was shown on the note and he took the note with the right to withhold demand for any period of time up to February 7, 1963, under the laws of Arkansas, which has a statutory period of five years. Sec. 37-209, Ark.Stats. of 1947 and cites Smith v. Grimsley, 215 Ark. 279, 220 S.W.2d 428, S.Ct. of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Velde v. Swanson
...statute of limitation. See, Citibank National Ass'n. v. London, 526 F.Supp. 793 (S.D.Tex.1981), and Hobbs v. Hajecate, 374 S.W.2d 351 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1964, writ ref'd), both discussing the decision in Butler, Section 25-216, Revised Civil Statutes of Nebraska, provides in pertinent pa......
-
Culpepper v. Daniel Industries, Inc.
...the laws of Louisiana, or whether it is a matter of remedy and of procedure, governed by the laws of Texas. Hobbs v. Hajecate, 374 S.W.2d 351 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1964, writ ref.); California Department of Mental Hygiene v. Copus, 309 S.W.2d 227 (Tex.Sup.1958). More specifically, the quest......
-
Savings & Profit Sharing Fund of Sears Employees v. Stubbs
...action is sought to be maintained. State of California v. Copus, 158 Tex. 196, 309 S.W.2d 227, 230 (1958); Hobbs v. Hajecate, 374 S.W.2d 351, 352 (Tex.Civ.App.1964, writ ref'd). This suit does not involve a question of the construction of the terms of Forrest Stubbs' profit sharing account ......
-
Los Angeles Airways, Inc. v. Lummis
...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 n......