Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

20 Tex. 310

Blair v. Reid

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1857

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1857-07-01

Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. Suit by A. L. Reid and others, composing firm of Reid, Sprague & Co., against A. C. Blair, John G. Logue, and Isam Tooke, commenced March 4th, 1857, on a promissory note for $3000, signed by Blair, payable to Logue or order, and assigned to Tooke, by whom it was assigned to plaintiffs.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1893

1 state decisions

Relies on Gibson v. Gibson · Winans v. Huston

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1857-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Wheeler, J.

¶1In the Courts of Common Law it is held that a covenant not to sue upon a contract, for a limited time, is not pleadable in bar or suspension of an action upon such contract. It does not suspend the creditor’s action, and the debtor’s remedy is by suit upon the covenant. (15 Mass. 112: 8 Pick. 229 ; 11 Id. 159, 160; 6 Wend. 471; 3 M. & W. 210.) By some Courts this rulé is held not to apply to actions of assumpsit, a covenant not to sue for a time certain, being there held to be a bar during that time. (2 Parsons on Cov. 219, 220.) And so, I apprehend, it must be held in all cases in our Courts; since our practice discountenances circuity of actions, and requires parties to litigate all their respective rights respecting the subject matter in question, in one suit. The debtor may plead the ■covenant not to sue in suspension of the action; and he may doubtless plead in reconvention against the covenantor, damages accruing from the breach of it. But in this case the plaintiffs are not the covenantors. They have not covenanted not to sue the defendant. And clearly they are not liable to the defendant in an action, or plea in reconvention, which is, in effect, an action, for the breach of a covenant to which they were not parties. The defendant’s action upon the covenant, if he have any, lies against the covenantor, not the plaintiffs. The latter, as assignees of the note, with notice of the covenant, are bound by it in so far only as it operates to suspend the right of action. They cannot be held responsible in damages for their assignor’s breach of covenant. It cannot be pleaded in reconvention against them.

¶2Nor was the sum alleged to have been paid by the defendant upon the principal debt pleadable in reconvention. Having been so paid, though upon a debt not then due, but thereafter to become due, it could not be recovered back. If not credited it might have been pleaded as a payment, but not in reconvention.

¶3The exceptions to the plea in reconvention were rightly sus*315tained; and there was nothing to prevent the plaintiff from taking a nonsuit. The judgment is affirmed.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

/20/tex/310 · .json · Public domain