Case ID: sw_153/html/1198-04.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HARPER, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LOFTUS v. GREEN.
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.
    Jan. 23, 1913.
    Rehearing denied Feb. 19, 1913.)
    Appeal from Harris _ County Court; Clark C. Wren, Judge. Suit by L. S. Green against T. F. Loftus. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Fisher, Sears & Campbell, of Houston, for appellant. Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood and Walter H. Walne, all of Houston, and Beall, Kemp & Parker, of El Paso, for ap-pellee.
   HARPER, C. J.

This is a suit by L. S. Green against T. F. Loftus for the recovery of $332.50, the balance due upon a verbal contract between the parties, under which plaintiff architect was to prepare plans for the erection of a two-story brick building in the city of Houston, procure bids therefor, and to superintend the construction thereof. The appellant’s first and second assignments of error raise the same question, viz.: The court erred in overruling defendant’s first and second special exceptions to plaintiff’s second amended original petition. The exceptions charged that the said pleading-set up a new cause of action, and, if so, the petition upon its face showed that the same was barred by the two-year statute. These questions were adjudicated by the Court of Civil Appeals of the Fourth Supreme Judicial District (Green v. Loftus, 132 S. W. 502) and the-Court of Civil Appeals of First District, 104 S. W. 396, holding contrary to appellant’s contentions. We concur in their opinion; therefore overrule the assignments. The third assignment complains of the court’s charge, and the fourth assigns error in the refusal of special charge-No. 3; and the fifth and sixth charge error in. court’s failure to charge as suggested by appellant’s special charges Nos. 2 and 3. We find' no error in the charge of the court as given, and. cannot agree that it was error for the court to-refuse the special charges requested by the defendant. All the assignments are therefore overruled, and the judgment of the lower court affirmed.