McCorkle v. Hamilton

6 Citing cases

  1. Ditech Servicing, LLC v. Perez

    NUMBER 13-17-00123-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 31, 2018)   Cited 4 times

    By contrast, it is well established that a suit to foreclose a mortgage is quasi in rem. McCorkle v. Hamilton, 150 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex. Civ. App.—Fort Worth 1941, writ ref'd); Edinburg Irr. Co. v. Paschen, 235 S.W. 1088, 1090 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1922). A quasi in rem proceeding has been described as an action "between parties, where the direct object is to reach and dispose of property owned by them, or of some interest therein."

  2. Martin v. Ford

    853 S.W.2d 680 (Tex. App. 1993)   Cited 13 times
    Imposing an equitable lien where a promissory note was executed memorializing the parties' expectation that a subsequent mortgage would be executed

    If, however, a demand is an integral part of a cause of action, or a condition precedent to the right to sue, limitations does not begin to run until a demand is made, unless demand is waived or is unreasonably delayed. Cummins and Walker Oil Co. v. Smith, 814 S.W.2d 884 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1991, no writ); Young v. J J Bail Bonds Co., 792 S.W.2d 484 (Tex.App. — El Paso 1990, no writ); Gabriel v. Alhabbal, 618 S.W.2d 894 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Foreman v. Graham, 363 S.W.2d 371 (Tex.Civ.App. — Beaumont 1962, no writ); McCorkle v. Hamilton, 150 S.W.2d 439 (Tex.Civ.App. — Fort Worth 1941, writ ref'd). Ford contends that demand was a requirement before this note became due, and therefore limitations did not begin to run until her demand letter was sent in May 1990.

  3. Green Oaks Apts. Ltd. v. Cannan

    696 S.W.2d 415 (Tex. App. 1985)   Cited 11 times

    A suit to foreclose a mortgage is considered an action quasi in rem. See McCorkle v. Hamilton, 150 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex.Civ.App. — Fort Worth 1941, writ ref'd). In Roberts v. Carlisle, 4 S.W.2d 144, 151 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1928, writ dism'd), the court determined that a suit to foreclose a lien on property was an action quasi in rem, saying:

  4. Gabriel v. Alhabbal

    618 S.W.2d 894 (Tex. Civ. App. 1981)   Cited 36 times
    Finding that statute of limitations for suit on note payable in installments runs against each installment from time it becomes due

    Foreman v. Graham, 363 S.W.2d 371 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1962, no writ); Dunn v. Reliance Life and Accident Insurance Company of America, 405 S.W.2d 389 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1966, writ ref'd n. r. e.). In McCorkle v. Hamilton, 150 S.W.2d 439 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1941, writ ref'd) the plaintiff entered into a contract with Lloyds America whereby she agreed to become one of the insurance underwriters of the company. In connection with this contract she executed a promissory note in the sum of $3,500 payable on demand to the attorneys in fact for the insurance company.

  5. Citizens National Bank in Abilene v. Cattleman's Production Credit Ass'n

    617 S.W.2d 731 (Tex. Civ. App. 1981)   Cited 8 times
    In Citizens Nat'l Bank v. Cattleman's Production Credit Ass'n, 617 S.W.2d 731 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1981, no writ), a suit to foreclose on property to satisfy a mortgage lien was held to be a local action when the bank was only seeking a remedy from the property and not a deficiency judgment from the mortgage holder.

    The judgment is binding only upon the parties and their privies. McCorkle v. Hamilton, 150 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex.Civ.App. Fort Worth 1941, writ ref'd). In our case, plaintiff is proceeding directly and only against the property for satisfaction of its mortgage lien. Plaintiff does not seek personal judgment against either defendant.

  6. Stephenson v. Walker

    593 S.W.2d 846 (Tex. Civ. App. 1980)   Cited 5 times

    Local actions are in the nature of suits in rem, a term defined as designating proceedings or actions instituted against the thing, that is, an action taken directly against property or one which is brought to enforce a right in the thing itself. Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed.). See, Knox v. Quinn, 164 S.W.2d 580 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1942, no writ); McCorkle v. Hamilton, 150 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex.Civ.App. Fort Worth 1941, writ ref'd); Perdue v. Perdue, 208 S.W. 353 (Tex.Civ.App. Texarkana 1918), aff'd. 217 S.W. 694 (Tex. 1920).