Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

153 S.W. 1198

Loftus v. Green

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided January 23, 1913

Court of Appeals of Texas · decided 1913-01-23

<p>Appeal from Harris _ County Court; Clark C. Wren, Judge. Suit by L. S. Green against T. F. Loftus. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.</p>

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently July 1959

2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Relies on Green v. Loftus

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1913-01-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

HARPER, C. J.

¶1 This is a suit by L. S. Green against T. F. Loftus for the recovery of $332.50, the balance due upon a verbal contract between the parties, under which plaintiff architect was to prepare plans for the erection of a two-story brick building in the city of Houston, procure bids therefor, and to superintend the construction thereof. The appellant’s first and second assignments of error raise the same question, viz.: The court erred in overruling defendant’s first and second special exceptions to plaintiff’s second amended original petition. The exceptions charged that the said pleading-set up a new cause of action, and, if so, the petition upon its face showed that the same was barred by the two-year statute. These questions were adjudicated by the Court of Civil Appeals of the Fourth Supreme Judicial District (Green v. Loftus, 132 S. W. 502) and the-Court of Civil Appeals of First District, 104 S. W. 396, holding contrary to appellant’s contentions. We concur in their opinion; therefore overrule the assignments. The third assignment complains of the court’s charge, and the fourth assigns error in the refusal of special charge-No. 3; and the fifth and sixth charge error in. court’s failure to charge as suggested by appellant’s special charges Nos. 2 and 3. We find' no error in the charge of the court as given, and. cannot agree that it was error for the court to-refuse the special charges requested by the defendant. All the assignments are therefore overruled, and the judgment of the lower court affirmed.

/153/sw/1198 · .json · Public domain