Williams v. Roberts, 16431
| Decision Date | 27 May 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 16431,16431 |
| Citation | 621 S.W.2d 427 |
| Parties | Dr. E. H. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Robert F. ROBERTS, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Plaintiff, Dr. E. H. Williams, appeals from a judgment awarding him damages in the amount of $18,235.59 against defendant, Robert F. Roberts. Plaintiff's sole complaint is that the trial court erred in not awarding him prejudgment interest on the amount recovered. Defendant has not responded to plaintiff's sole point of error but, instead, as cross-appellant, presents points challenging the judgment rendered against him.
Defendant hired plaintiff, a doctor of veterinary medicine, as a veterinarian and general manager of defendant's thoroughbred racehorse ranch. Plaintiff's pleadings sought recovery on the basis of an oral contract of employment or, in the alternative, on the basis of quantum meruit, for services and labor performed, and material furnished to or benefitting defendant.
Defendant first challenges the judgment on the ground that the cause of action on which the judgment is based was barred by the two-year statute of limitations.
Plaintiff's original petition sought recovery on the basis of an oral contract which provided that plaintiff receive a salary of $1,000.00 per month plus 5% of the winnings of the horses owned and raced by defendant. In addition, plaintiff sought reimbursement for certain expenditures which he alleged he incurred for the benefit of defendant and with the understanding that he would be reimbursed for such expenditures. This pleading was filed prior to the expiration of the limitations period.
Nine years later, plaintiff filed an amended petition in which he added an alternative prayer for recovery on the theory of quantum meruit. Under this pleading plaintiff sought to recover the reasonable value of the services rendered by him and the expenses for which he had not been reimbursed. The amended pleading also sought recovery of attorney's fees.
Defendant's contention that the claim based on quantum meruit is barred by limitations rests primarily on the decision in Phoenix Lumber Co. v. Houston Water Co., 94 Tex. 456, 61 S.W. 707 (1901), in which it was said that, in determining whether a cause of action first presented in an amended pleading is barred by limitations, it depends on whether the cause of action alleged in the amended pleading was, with reference to the claim pleaded in the original petition, the same cause of action. Phoenix established a four-pronged test for determining whether the causes of action were identical. A finding of identity required an affirmative answer to each of the following questions: (1) Would a recovery under the original claim bar a recovery under the claim alleged in the amended petition? (2) Would the same evidence support both causes of action alleged? (3) Is the measure of damages the same under each claim? (4) Is each cause of action subject to the same defenses? 61 S.W. at 709.
Phoenix was decided prior to the adoption, in 1931, of Article 5539b, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. (Vernon 1958). This statute provides that whenever a pleading embracing a cause of action is filed at a time when such cause of action is not barred by limitation, no subsequent amendment changing any of the facts or grounds of liability shall be subject to a plea of limitation unless such amendment is wholly based upon and grows out of a "new, distinct or different transaction and occurrence."
There are post-1931 decisions, such as Hopper v. Hargrove, 154 S.W.2d 978 (Tex.Civ.App. Texarkana 1941, writ ref'd), and Lubbering v. Ellison, 342 S.W.2d 796 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1961, no writ), which followed the "cause of action" concept enunciated in Phoenix. However, the Supreme Court, in Leonard v. Texaco, Inc. 422 S.W.2d 160, 163 (Tex.1967), made it clear that the test under Article 5539b "is no longer based upon a difference in causes of action declared upon in the original and amended petitions", but "is whether the cause of action alleged in the amended petition is 'wholly based upon and grows out of a new, distinct or different transaction and occurrence.' " The Leonard opinion expressly disapproved the contrary holding in Hopper.
It is clear that the quantum meruit claim alleged by plaintiff in his amended pleading was not wholly based upon, nor did it grow out of, "a new, distinct or different transaction and occurrence." Defendant's contention based on limitations is without merit. See Blalack v. Johnson, 293 S.W.2d 811 (Tex.Civ.App. Texarkana 1956, no writ).
Since plaintiff's pleading clearly alleged that he had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. for Use and Ben. of Lochridge-Priest, Inc. v. Con-Real Support Group, Inc.
...grounds, Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co., 767 S.W.2d 686 (Tex.1989); see Davidson v. Clearman, 391 S.W.2d 48, 52 (Tex.1965); Williams v. Roberts, 621 S.W.2d 427, 429 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1981, no writ); McDaniel v. Tucker, 520 S.W.2d 543, 549 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1975, no writ). ......
-
Pepi Corp. v. Galliford
...Id. Appellant also cites Williams v. Roberts as authority for his assertion that a two-year statute applies to quantum meruit claims. 621 S.W.2d 427 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1981, no writ). In Williams, the court held that a quantum meruit claim, which otherwise would have been barred by eithe......
-
J.M. Hollis Const. Co., Inc. v. Paul Durham Co.
...v. Clearman, 391 S.W.2d 48 (Tex.1965); Beck v. Lawler, 422 S.W.2d 816 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1968, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Williams v. Roberts, 621 S.W.2d 427 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1981, no writ); Imperial Sugar Co. v. Torrans, 604 S.W.2d 73 (Tex.1980). In such circumstances, recovery o......