Wilson v. Browning Arms Co., 882
| Decision Date | 14 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 882,882 |
| Citation | 501 S.W.2d 705 |
| Parties | Donald G. WILSON, Appellant, v. BROWNING ARMS COMPANY, Appellee. (14th Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Robert J. Thweatt, Hofheinz & Harpold, Houston, for appellant.
William A. Petersen, Jr., Jon D. Totz, Lapin, Totz & Mayer, Houston, for appellee.
The appellee, Browning Arms Company, filed suit in the district court on a sworn account. Its petition was duly verified in accord with the provisions of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 185. All of the items of the account were sold more than two years and less than four years before February 2, 1973, the date the suit was filed. The appellant-defendant, Donald G. Wilson filed an unsworn answer consisting of a general denial and a plea of the two-year statute of limitations. Browning thereupon filed a motion for summary judgment. That motion for summary judgment was not supported by affidavit or other summary judgment evidence aside from the pleadings. The summary judgment evidence filed by Wilson established the facts upon which he based his plea of the two-year statute of limitations. The trial court granted Browning's motion for summary judgment. Wilson has appealed stating two points of error. First, he states that the trial court erred in granting Browning's motion for summary judgment for the reason that there was no summary judgment evidence supporting the motion--it depended solely on the pleadings for support. Second, he contends that his plea of the two-year statute of limitations, supported by summary judgment evidence, precluded the granting of the motion in favor of Browning. Those points of error are overruled, and the trial court's summary judgment for Browning is affirmed.
In Hidalgo v. Surety Savings and Loan Association, 462 S.W.2d 540 (Tex.Sup.1971), the Court held that pleadings, even if sworn to, do not ordinarily constitute summary judgment evidence. However, the Court qualified that holding by a footnote-comment saying:
Tex.R.Civ.P. 185 provides that in a suit on a sworn account plaintif...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. v. Neal A. Sweebe, Inc.
...on open accounts such as the instant case are governed by [the UCC article 2 limitations period]....”); Wilson v. Browning Arms Co., 501 S.W.2d 705, 706 (Tex.Civ.App.1973) (same); Aluminum Co. of America v. Electro Flo. Corp., 451 F.2d 1115, 1116 (C.A.10, 1971) (applying the UCC in a suit b......
-
Deluxe Sales and Service, Inc. v. Hyundai Engineering & Const. Co., Ltd.
...P.2d 705, 706 (Okla.1976); Big D Service Co., Inc. v. Climatrol Industries, Inc., 523 S.W.2d 236 (Tex.1975); Wilson v. Browning Arms Company, 501 S.W.2d 705, 706 (Tex.Civ.App.1973), with Childs v. Taylor Cotton Oil Co., 612 S.W.2d 245, 249-50 (Tex.Civ.App.1981). The majority view is that th......
-
Burton v. Artery Co., Inc., 82
...Pacific Steel Pool Corp., 73 Misc.2d 78, 341 N.Y.S.2d 364, 365 (S.Ct., Spec.Term, Albany Co.1973); and Wilson v. Browning Arms Company, 501 S.W.2d 705, 706 (Tex.Civ.App., 14th Dist. 1973). Such holdings are in accord with the comment in 1 W. Hawkland, A Transactional Guide to the Uniform Co......
-
Morton v. Texas Welding & Mfg. Co.
...of the Code to introduce a uniform statute of limitations for sales contracts. See also Wilson v. Browning Arms Company, 501 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.Civ. App. — Houston 14th Dist. 1973, writ ref'd); Big D Service Co., Inc. v. Climatrol Industries, Inc., 514 S.W.2d 148 (Tex.Civ.App. — Texarkana 1974......