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: 16
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
116 H. & T. . .R'Y Co. V. TRAVIS COUNTY. [Austin Term,
Opinion of the court.
THE H. & T. C. R'Y Co. v. TRAVIS COUNTY.
(Case No. 4845.)
L LIMITATION.- The statute of limitations runs against a county. The maxim,
nulluin tempus occurrit regi, has no application. See opinion for a review
of cases, and of the opinions of commentators on the question.
APPEAL from Travis. Tried below before the Hon. A. S. Walker.
The lengthy statement of the pleadings made for the inspection
of the supreme court by the commission of appeals is omitted here.
The suit was for damages caused by the manner in which the appellant
constructed its railway crossing over a public highway. The
statute of limitations was pleaded against the county, which, on
demurrer, was stricken out; to which ruling exception was taken,
and the action of the court in this respect was the only error assigned.
Geo. Goldthwaite, for appellant, cited: Baker v. Johnson County,
33 Iowa, 153; City of Wheeling v. Campbell, 12 West Va., 57;
Armstrong v. Dalton, 4 Dev., 368; County of St. Charles v. Powell,
22 Mo., 525; City of Galveston v. Menard, 23 Tex., 349; Wood, Stat.
of Limitation, § 53; 2 Dillon on Mun. Corp., 673-675, and authorities
John 1Dowell, for appellee, cited: Coleman v. Thurmond, 56 Tex.,
514; Boone on Corp., sees. 314, 315; Pierce on Railroads, pp. 243,
245; Smith v. Power, 23 Tex., 29; Milam County v. Bateman,
54 Tex., 153; Thompson on Highways, pp. 410, 411, 412; Sipperly
v. Troy & Boston R. R. Co., 9 How. (N. Y.), 83; R. S., arts. 651,
p. 109; 676, p. 112; 4170, p. 602; State Constitution, sees. 1 and 2,
art. 11, p. 23; 1 Dillon on Mun. Corp. (3d ed.), sec. 23; id., sec. 25;
Chapter 1, Title 88, p. 360, R. S., Establishment of Public Roads;
City of Navasota v. Pearce, 46 Tex., 525.
WALKER, P. J. CoM. App.--This suit was filed on the 11th day of
July, 1882, and the work and labor was performed, and the indebtedness
accrued, the 17th day of February, 1879,- more than two years,
therefore, having intervened before the suit was instituted. The
only question presented on this appeal is whether in a personal action,
such as this is, the statute of limitations runs against a county.
The statute of limitations does not, in terms, exempt counties or
other municipal subdivisions of the sovereign authority from its
operation. It is contended, however, that the statute of limitations
Here’s what’s next.
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. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28512/m1/38/: accessed August 23, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .