Heldt v. Martin

3 Citing cases

  1. Texas Employers' Ins Assoc v. Finch

    512 S.W.2d 51 (Tex. Civ. App. 1974)

    While the facts set forth by appellant's bill of exception may possibly constitute a defense to the suit on its merits, evidence of such defense was not admissible upon hearing of the venue issues. Stockyards Nat. Bank v. Maples, 127 Tex. 633, 95 S.W.2d 1300, 1304 (Tex.Com.App. 1936); Bradley v. Trinity State Bank, 118 Tex. 274, 14 S.W.2d 810 (Tex.Com.App. 1929); Josey Miller Company v. Wilson, 384 S.W.2d 231 (Tex.Civ.App., San Antonio, 1964, n.w.h.); Heldt v. Martin, 368 S.W.2d 9 (Tex.Civ.App., Austin, 1963 dism'd.); Delta Western Trans. Corp. v. Plantation Foods, Inc., 455 S.W.2d 957 (Tex.Civ.App., Waco, 1970, n.w.h.). Appellant's first point is overruled.

  2. McMillan Construction Co. v. Pierce

    438 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Civ. App. 1969)   Cited 3 times

    Having concluded, as we do, that the notice provision contained in Art. 5160, subd. B(b)(2) is in effect a statute of limitation, and a statute of limitation being a defensive matter that cannot be properly injected into a plea of privilege hearing (60 Tex.Jur.2d Sec. 200, P. 23, Footnote 15, citing American Casualty Co. v. Bailey (Tex.Civ.App.) 129 S.W.2d 338 (n.w.h.), Heldt v. Martin (Tex.Civ.App.) 368 S.W.2d 9, (dism'd w.o.j.), Newman v. Texas Farm Products Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 346 S.W.2d 151, (n.w.h.) and Smiser v. Petroleum Refining Co., (Tex.Civ.App.) 398 S.W.2d 177 (n.w.h.)), we are of the opinion that appellants cannot properly raise the point herein. Appellants point out that the case of Harry Newton, Inc. v. Broaddus, Tex.Civ.App., 372 S.W.2d 950, (Austin C.A., 1963, n.w.h.) is in conflict with this decision and this court's decision in Cole v. Western Brick Supply Co., supra, and we agree.

  3. Harry Newton Inc. v. Broaddus

    372 S.W.2d 950 (Tex. Civ. App. 1963)   Cited 2 times

    34 Am. Jur., Limitations of Actions, p. 15, footnote 1, citing Hay v. City of Baraboo, 127 Wis. 1, 105 N.W. 654, 3 L.R.A., N.S., 84, 115 Am.St.Rep. 977. As such, they are, under Rule 94, T.R.C.P., and Heldt v. Martin, 368 S.W.2d 9, Austin Civil Appeals, writ dism., w. o. j., of a purely defensive character. The fact that Art. 5160 provides that a claimant shall have the right to sue the principal and surety on a payment bond 'provided' he has given certain notices within prescribed times or that it states that 'no right of action shall be legally enforceable, nor shall any suit be maintained under any provision of this 'Act' unless certain other notices are timely given does not alter their defensive nature.