OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF l~x~g

Q-CMAlW4 ArmwlrvM- i’

County Af;t;crney Pltts@urg, Texas Dar. 91r t

of recent ilate

vhora ha8 heretofor cant e city of Plttabwg uctlon of oertaln street 5qxxivt3mentq ch wx?@ to ha%3 bsen’~ paid for LIIcalI ctract. YabuI .cientoa& on

G thou %o*ur years etico been ooaplotod and tc were lamed, and slnoe tults arc more tti foul? approaiate yaw op%nicas

ty now pays Lo ,JiXien and Austin onoy it ovos on thoeo strast Imoh 1s more thtixfour years past duo, vould’the mnbers of tha Cfig Counoll and. the CLty ,Trcnouycr become **pQ3.?8OlUkls.ly'~lEb~e** to the city for suoh paymnts?” Article 5(9x-1,

Movised Civil Statutes, 1925, 

### groQldeathat --~onornble s. A. **&l&Et,** paga **a**

“The lag of:ZI.~?~tcttS.ona Bhnll not be wmilsblc in any suit unions lt bo speoif'lcallyset '~ forth by the gmty who in his 

### ruamer5nvokes it a8 a defense. !l!hpho rule that &zitatlon as a defense may be ~nlve& ia%wsely ntrrted In the CISU of Duokuorth v. DzllaG Co,wty mme tiprovezent l&strict, 11 6, 'i{. (26) 263, whom 3.tis cnld1
"A plea Of limltctlon is 2 rpecir3. &fens0 vhloh must bo plonircd. ft cnn be r2iaod.only IQepoci21 exccptnon or plea, U.Xl.t2tiOnis R deSense that nay b3 vaived. Lt,~cnn nowr be reis~d by ,pneraY.

dmxwror
. Ancl,xlthou#I 1imitction ls nado a v~lie clefcxos by utatutcr, ~the poulrts have 

### neverbono out of their way to find some vay tp suatn3.n

such n defense-,

but lasvo.al~r~ys reguirod that it be **pPOpePly** presented byspe-. clnl ex5optIon or plea, onclon appeal under a proper aoafgnmczit ob:erP0r.Y : s .~. Tt isoo?,2 establfshed th2t otntutes of U.mftatlon aura remediaLI,

End 3.u

no mar&w do they affect the subst111- tive l3glltS0P Iitl~2JiUihu8,”28 TC?i,SUP. 78; PoyIm V.: ~Csl&-sCll, 267 3. ?..~280;Chapman V, Hoo~ey’; 257 3. Il. $106. The correct prkwiple is ect %orth 3.11'28 Tex. Jur. 281, asifallo-acr ; ,% lfi.2general rule; firmly sott&xI, that the statute of llnitatione Effects the remedy only, but hoes not destroy tho debt. There remains a noral oblQ2t;ion to pay; vhich constitutes good oonsidoration for c new grotise.

. . ,’ The governing bo6y oE a mux!xipal corporation may waive the defense of ltiitation. If such a pies my be \r2ived,it logicnllg follovs that there is no absolute 6uty tiposod by Ian\* upon the governing bo2y to present the ciefcnseof 23xiitntion, ia a cult which my be filed a@:OLnstthe crity, It therefore 'Sollovs that the govornlng body of 2 citynay procwd to pzy a clnin which is juot and upon ~hlch there is a moral obligation~topay, ,althoughthe dcfenae of,limitation might be lntorposed Sn a ault brought to collect the claim, Tf; aa stated in.

**yew** letter, tlie

C%ty of Pittnburg was finanadally mbarrasaed at, tho time this oblli-$tlon was ~ucwraQ and hse been unable to pay the mouat, ve 03a a6 no reason vhy the oufferage of its **orei.tora 3hould**  **laskitre It**  **lqJ?on3iblc fm**  **the city**  **vollu3tarllg to**  **yRy Cd3**  **honcet-** 

### GobtWh~?n it bc:ocim?rr

able **to** do **30, GV#n**  thou&, thep6i*iodof limltat;ion uUdQr the statutes nay have iwsx.
A e%tiler quaation prose in t!m c(?se of? State P. i EllTott, 212 3, U. 69.5. In this C’lS6 Elliott, the plnl.ntiff, aeoured le~islntive pernioefon to sue the State fol*damages **PCEkii.tbl~ ik-** **‘ O~~**  **~CX=3CllC~ illjUl+X!**  **WCCiV& VilC**  **VOXkb~ f-OX** **’** the i%ato raib3xia. llore thaa two ycara had olapeed betrreen tho tfne oi’the 

### fnfuryend i2ia ti.m 02 tilfnga~&l,but thaact granting,

pemxLsoloa to eue pzovidcd thai: 

### linl.tst;bon nhould not rvn w&i1 tco gonrn after the date the act beome offactive. !i!he Stcte attaakod tho statute on the @*ounds that at the tirno **the iitili**  **Vns file@,**  the cause 

### of action ‘??a~ bowed by ltiltations. Nu.marousoonatitutioml objeotims vero made to the I,eg.islaturo~s

effo’rtto,

revive the cmxte of rtot%o~. a$tferit had becoae ,subjeatto a daferxze of 15.mitntiog. The court ex.- :~ 

### procoed ‘$0180

doubt ae to the zwnrgingof the ,atatuteeof limit&- ticm, but hold that even iP the cla%?~ Were bmred,~ there m-8 no objoctioa to the LegkLatwe valving it. TUG Court se.?mdl

‘1.5oreover,

no constitutional provIsIon reqtircd the State to plerd .liaftationas a Qcfense; hence
. its Ic@nlature vae nbt vIthout the paver, throu@ a meamtw of the chamcrter here involved, to waive it, such an act being 8,fomsrd look- one, and not therefore undewithe ban titerdictfng ex post faoto and retroactive statutes, O’Ikm4 v, State, ll.2 R, P. 146, 19 ft.E. 659, 2 L. R. A. 603, 8 Am. State Reports 7263 Dsvia v. Da>~es,ti IMAx & Ed.~ (Pa.) 

### SO; **Lade** 

### v. Turnor,Ii0 Ga. 416.” k;
::

‘: 4

.: i?

Applying ,thd#mm prf.naiploo,the Texas courts have held .thatneither a pounty nor a city can cmplaLn of hn act Of the LogieLatwe requiring it to pay a ‘debtwhich has ,boBn -beFred by limitation. 28) LIneatone County v. ~Robbins,38 S. tt. 580~(Coma, dpp. )J Count.,y of Caldwell’v. Qockatt, 4 S.Z. 07 (3up. Ct.); I.iellinger V, City of IIouaton, 3 S. I?. 249 (Sup. Ct.). ’‘i .1

.

,,

I’

. .

. -. ., . <

,’
haa ronaljledsilent on the

. COBrdb

. Aasiatant .