Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62. Page: 331
xxii, 836 p., 22 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1884.] LEACH V. WILSON COUNTY. 331
Statement of the case.
T. T. LEACH V. WILSON COUNTY.
(Case No. 1585.)
1. PLEADING.- See statement of the case for allegations in a petition held sufficient
to recover upon an allowed claim evidenced by warrant drawn in
favor of certain parties upon the county treasurer, and by them assigned to
plaintiff.
2. COUNTY WARRANT-ACCRUAL OF ACTION. -While a county warrant is prima
facie evidence of a subsisting debt, yet by statute (R. S., art. 677) it affords
no right of action until the county has by some act repudiated the claim.
3. SAME- LIMITATION.- Where the warrant was drawn in 1872, and recognized
by the county until 1881, when it was repudiated, limitation did not begin
to run until the act of repudiation.
4. SAME-ASSIGNABILITY.-A county warrant, though non-negotiable, is assignable.APPEAL from Wilson. Tried below before the Hon. Everett
Lewis.
November 16, 1881, Leach brought this suit against Wilson county,
to recover upon an allowed claim evidenced by a warrant drawn
upon the county treasurer, dated June 1, 1872, in favor of Maverick
& Kroeger. By an amended petition filed December 5, 1882, it was
in effect alleged that, the county being indebted to Maverick &
Kroeger, the county court, on the 28th day of May, 1872, by order,
allowed the claim and directed a warrant to be issued therefor,
which was done; that for a valuable consideration Maverick &
Kroeger transferred and assigned the same to appellant, that the
same was registered by the county treasurer January 19, 1880, and
is due and unpaid. It was further alleged that on the 28th day of
June, 1881, the county court by order directed the treasurer not to
pay the same until he might be otherwise instructed by the court.
Appellee answered by general and special exceptions. The grounds
-of special exceptions were: 1st. That it is not shown that the
,county was ever indebted to Maverick & Kroeger. 2d. No consideration
was shown as a basis for the warrant, etc. 3d. That the
allegations of the petition showed that the alleged claim was barred
by limitation.
The court sustained the exceptions, and the appellant having declined
to further amend, the case was dismissed, etc.
Lawhon c& Browne, for appellant.
Ireland, Burgess & Polly, for appellee.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62., book, 1885; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28512/m1/353/: accessed May 3, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .