Stein v. Hamman
| Decision Date | 23 May 1928 |
| Docket Number | (No. 904-4812.) |
| Citation | 6 S.W.2d 352 |
| Parties | STEIN v. HAMMAN et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by George Hamman and others against Max Stein. On certified question from the Court of Civil Appeals. Question answered in affirmative.
Stevens & Stevens, of Houston, and C. L. Dutton, of Richmond, for appellant.
D. R. Peareson and Peareson & Peareson, all of Richmond, for appellees.
Max Stein was indebted to J. H. P. Davis & Co., bankers, in the sum of $46,229, due upon certain overdrafts with that company, which overdrafts as such were barred by the statutes of limitations. He delivered to the company a certain promissory note executed by C. H. Brown, payable to himself in the sum of $235, upon which there was a credit, and at the time indorsed on the Brown note, and signed such indorsement, the following: "As collateral to secure my overdrafts to J. H. P. Davis & Co." The company sued Stein upon the indorsement as a new promise, and the plea of limitation interposed by the defendant raises the question certified to us whether or not the indorsement, when considered with the parol evidence identifying the overdrafts referred to, was sufficient acknowledgment to support an implied promise of defendant to pay the debt.
The trial court held that it was, and the Court of Civil Appeals wrote an opinion affirming that judgment, and later certified the question to the Supreme Court.
We have examined the opinion written by Justice Lane, and are of the opinion it announces a correct conclusion based upon proper reasoning.
It is well settled that a statement in writing, signed by the party sought to be charged, which clearly acknowledges the existence of a debt against him, carries with it an implied promise to pay the same.
Counsel for appellant has urged, both in his brief and in oral argument at the submission, that the transaction is no more than a pledge of the Brown note, and, that being in legal effect only a pledge, it is no more than a payment, and therefore will not support an implied promise to pay, and cites authorities to support the general proposition thus urged.
It is true a mere pledge within itself cannot meet the requirements of the statute for precisely the same reason that a mere payment will not renew the debt, but to hold with appellant in this case is to confuse the principles underlying the question. It must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fakes v. Vilven
...the operation of the statute of limitation, under such authorities as Amonette v. Taylor, Tex.Civ.App., 244 S.W. 238, and Stein v. Hamman, 118 Tex. 16, 6 S.W.2d 352, 9 S. W.2d 1104. But the facts here make that reasoning inept and that line of cases distinguishable; there was in this instan......
-
Starr v. Ferguson
...of the statute of limitations is supported by the following authorities: Howard & Hume v. Windom, 86 Tex. 560, 26 S.W. 483; Stein v. Hamman, 118 Tex. 16, 6 S.W.2d 352, 9 S.W.2d 1104; Elsby v. Luna, Tex.Com.App., 15 S.W.2d 604; Cotulla v. Urbahn, 104 Tex. 208, 216-218, 126 S.W. 1108, 135 S.W......
-
Schultze v. Schultze
...and promise to pay required by law will defeat the plea against the original promise," quoting from Stein v. Hamman, et al., Com.App., 118 Tex. 16, 6 S.W.2d 342, 353. The court further quoted from the Commission of Appeals in the case of Starr et al. v. Ferguson, 140 Tex. 80, 166 S.W.2d 130......
-
Uvalde Rock Asphalt Co. v. Hightower
...following authorities sustain our construction of Mrs. Hightower's letters as falling within the provisions of Article 5539: Stein v. Hamman et ux., 118 Tex. 16, 6 S.W.2d 352, 9 S.W.2d 1104; Windom v. Howard, 86 Tex. 560, 26 S.W. 483; Cochran v. J. B. Coe Lbr. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 82 S.W.2d 6......