Standard v. Thurmond
Decision Date | 28 November 1912 |
Citation | 151 S.W. 627 |
Parties | STANDARD v. THURMOND. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Taylor County Court; T. A. Bledsoe, Judge.
Action by W. P. Thurmond against W. J. Standard.Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.Reversed and remanded.
Cunningham & Oliver, of Abilene, for appellant.Dallas Scarborough, of Abilene, for appellee.
By his promissory note dated March 28, 1907, appellant undertook to pay to appellee's order October 1, 1907, "waiving grace and protest," $213, interest and attorney's fees.By his suit commenced October 2, 1911, appellee sought a recovery on the note.As a defense against such a recovery appellant set up the statute requiring a suit based on such a cause of action to be commenced within four years from the time the cause of action accrues.Sayles' Stat. art. 3356.A judgment having been rendered in favor of appellee for the amount of the note, appellant prosecuted this appeal.
Appellant by his contract having waived the days of grace he otherwise would have been entitled to (Sayles' Stat. art. 318;1 Daniel, Neg. Inst. § 633;Perkins v. Bank, 38 Mass. [21 Pick.] 485;Hirshfield v. Bank, 83 Tex. 452, 18 S. W. 743, 15 L. R. A. 639, 29 Am. St. Rep. 660), it is clear, under the rules controlling in such cases(Geistweidt v. Mann, 37 S. W. 372;Watkins v. Willis, 58 Tex. 523;Smith v. Dickey, 74 Tex. 61, 11 S. W. 1049), that appellee's cause of action accrued October 2, 1907.To be without the bar of the statute, his suit must have been commenced within four years from that date.As four years from October 2, 1907, expired with October 1, 1911, and the suit was not commenced until the next day, it is plain that it was within the bar of the statute and could not be maintained.That October 1, 1911, was Sunday, did not operate to extend the time within which the suit otherwise must have been commenced.Insurance Co. v. Shrader, 89 Tex. 40, 32 S. W. 872, 33 S. W. 112, 30 L. R. A. 498, 59 Am. St. Rep. 25;Allen v. Elliott, 67 Ala. 437;Perkins v. Bank, 38 Mass. (21 Pick.) 485.
The judgment will be reversed, and a judgment will be here rendered that appellee take nothing by his suit.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Taylor v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
...but limitation was suspended until she did become that age. The action is then barred in four years from that date. Standard v. Thurmond, Tex.Civ.App., 151 S.W. 627; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Goodson, 2 Willson Civ. Cas.Ct.App. § 27. Payne v. Wittenberg, Tex.Civ.App., 239 S.W. Findings of fact ......
-
Koethe v. Huggins
...note became payable on May 31, 1919. Brookshire v. Allen (Tex. Civ. App.) 32 S. W. 164, and authorities there cited; Standard v. Thurmond (Tex. Civ. App.) 151 S. W. 627; State Nat. Bank v. East Coast Oil Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 208 S. W. 190, writ of error denied; Brown v. Chancellor, 61 Tex. ......
-
Payne v. Wittenberg
...& Pacific Ry. Co., v. Moore (Tex. Civ. App.) 43 S. W. 67, decided in 1897, in which a writ of error was denied, and Standard v. Thurmond (Tex. Civ. App.) 151 S. W. 627, it was held that, in computing time during which limitation will run against such causes of action as that of the appellee......
-
Price v. Wood
...sue upon his note until the beginning of January 3, 1931, as appellant had all of January 2d in which to pay his note. Standard v. Thurmond (Tex.Civ.App.) 151 S.W. 627, is in point on the proposition that the cause of action accrued January 3d. In that case, the court "By his promissory not......