Coffey v. Young

2 Citing cases

  1. Whittle v. Mcorp Prop

    17 S.W.3d 718 (Tex. App. 2000)   Cited 4 times
    Explaining that four-year statute of limitations found in Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 16.004 applied to action on installment note prior to enactment of Texas Business and Commerce Code section 3.118, which provides for a six-year statute of limitations and has effective date of January 1, 1996

    Raley v. Wichita County, 123 Tex. 494, 72 S.W.2d 577, 579 (Tex. 1934). However, if a shorter limitations period had not fully run on the effective date of a new statute, the longer limitations period will apply because the defense of limitations does not become a vested right until the limitations period has actually run. National Mar-Kit, Inc. v. Forrest, 687 S.W.2d 457, 460 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, no writ); Coffey v. Young, 704 S.W.2d 591, 593 (Tex.App.-Ft. Worth 1986, no writ). In the case at bar, Whittle's statutory limitations plea began running when he failed to make his installment payments, but the defense had not vested when the new statute became effective.

  2. Scott v. Scruggs

    836 S.W.2d 278 (Tex. App. 1992)   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding no formal fiduciary relationship existed between cotenants and rejecting argument that informal fiduciary relationship existed

    Herbert v. Herbert, 754 S.W.2d 141, 144 (Tex. 1988). Scott relies on Coffey v. Young, 704 S.W.2d 591 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1986, no writ), in which the jury answered all questions necessary for recovery, including producing cause, in favor of the appellant. A factual sufficiency challenge to the amount of damages was sustained because the jury award was much less than the evidence clearly established.