MMP, Ltd. v. Jones, C-4509
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 710 S.W.2d 59 |
| Parties | MMP, LTD., A Texas Limited Partnership, Petitioner, v. Robert C. JONES, Individually and d/b/a Frank Jones Insurance Agency, Inc., Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. C-4509,C-4509 |
| Decision Date | 21 May 1986 |
Page 59
v.
Robert C. JONES, Individually and d/b/a Frank Jones
Insurance Agency, Inc., Respondent.
Thomas H. Crofts, Jr., Groce, Locke & Hebdon, San Antonio, for petitioner.
Charles E. Jones, Jr., Nunn, Griggs, Wetsel & Jones, Sweetwater, Tom Stolhandske, Stolhandske, Stolhandske & Conley, San Antonio, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a suit on a sworn account brought by Robert C. Jones, individually and doing business as Frank Jones Insurance Agency, Inc., against MMP, Ltd., a limited partnership. The trial court granted Jones' motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals affirmed. 695 S.W.2d 208. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause to the trial court.
The summary judgment evidence shows that MMP, Ltd. was originally a limited partnership with MMP Corporation as a corporate general partner. A.N. Murray was both president of MMP Corporation and a limited partner in MMP, Ltd. In 1973, the parties cancelled the limited partnership agreement and agreed to continue as a general partnership. MMP Corporation managed and/or did business as the Downtown Motor Inn. Robert Jones furnished insurance coverage to the Downtown Motor Inn over a period from June 1974 to April 1978, when premiums became delinquent. The original endorsement showed the insured as "MMP Corporation and/or MMP, Ltd." Jones filed suit on June 15, 1982.
The summary judgment proof included two letters which the trial court interpreted as an acknowledgment of the debt at issue, which would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations. See former Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5539 (now Tex.Civ.Pract. & Rem. Code § 16.065). The first of these, dated November 14, 1974 and signed by A.N. Murray, concerns an agreement between Murray and some of the parties to
Page 60
share the expenses of the Inn "on a 1/3 basis." The second of these, dated July 10, 1978, was from W. Ernest Norcross: it said that MMP Corporation would "make every effort" to start making payments of $1000 a month. MMP, Ltd. filed a response to the motion for summary judgment and controverting affidavits, disputing both the alleged acknowledgements and its liability for the debt incurred by its former corporate general partner, an allegedly separate entity.To be entitled to summary judgment, the movant must conclusively...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kiefer v. Continental Airlines, Inc., No. 01-91-01286-CV
...is no genuine issue of material fact as to one or more of the essential elements of the plaintiffs' cause of action. MMP, Ltd. v. Jones, 710 S.W.2d 59, 60 (Tex.1986); Gibbs v. General Motors Corp., 450 S.W.2d 827, 828 (Tex.1970); Goldberg v. United States Shoe Corp., 775 S.W.2d 751, 752 (Te......
-
American Centennial Ins. Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., No. 01-89-01138-CV
...the grant of a motion for summary judgment, this Court will take all evidence favorable to the nonmovant as true. MMP, Ltd. v. Jones, 710 S.W.2d 59, 60 (Tex.1986); Goldberg v. United States Shoe Corp., 775 S.W.2d 751, 752 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, writ denied). Every reasonable i......
-
Houle v. Jose Luis Casillas, Casco Invs. Inc., No. 08-17-00189-CV
...that a plaintiff moving for summary judgment must conclusively prove all essential elements of its claim) (citing MMP, Ltd. v. Jones , 710 S.W.2d 59, 60 (Tex. 1986) ; see Geiselman v. Cramer Fin. Group, Inc. , 965 S.W.2d 532, 535 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no writ) ). Moreover, i......
-
Moore v. Brunswick Bowling & Billiards Corp., Mercury Div., No. 01-91-00427-CV
...movant must show there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. MMP, Ltd. v. Jones, 710 S.W.2d 59, 60 (Tex.1986). The issue of federal preemption is a question of law for the court that can serve as a proper basis for summary judgment. S......
-
Kiefer v. Continental Airlines, Inc., No. 01-91-01286-CV
...is no genuine issue of material fact as to one or more of the essential elements of the plaintiffs' cause of action. MMP, Ltd. v. Jones, 710 S.W.2d 59, 60 (Tex.1986); Gibbs v. General Motors Corp., 450 S.W.2d 827, 828 (Tex.1970); Goldberg v. United States Shoe Corp., 775 S.W.2d 751, 752 (Te......
-
American Centennial Ins. Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., No. 01-89-01138-CV
...the grant of a motion for summary judgment, this Court will take all evidence favorable to the nonmovant as true. MMP, Ltd. v. Jones, 710 S.W.2d 59, 60 (Tex.1986); Goldberg v. United States Shoe Corp., 775 S.W.2d 751, 752 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, writ denied). Every reasonable i......
-
Houle v. Jose Luis Casillas, Casco Invs. Inc., No. 08-17-00189-CV
...that a plaintiff moving for summary judgment must conclusively prove all essential elements of its claim) (citing MMP, Ltd. v. Jones , 710 S.W.2d 59, 60 (Tex. 1986) ; see Geiselman v. Cramer Fin. Group, Inc. , 965 S.W.2d 532, 535 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no writ) ). Moreover, i......
-
Moore v. Brunswick Bowling & Billiards Corp., Mercury Div., No. 01-91-00427-CV
...movant must show there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. MMP, Ltd. v. Jones, 710 S.W.2d 59, 60 (Tex.1986). The issue of federal preemption is a question of law for the court that can serve as a proper basis for summary judgment. S......