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 LII calI 

c tract. Yabu I 

.cient oa& 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 thtix four 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, groQldea that -- 
~onornble s. A. &l&Et, paga a 

“The lag of: ZI.~?~tcttS.ona Bhnll not be wmilsblc in any suit unions lt bo speoif'lcally set '~ 

forth by the gmty who in his ruamer 5nvokes 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.t is 

cnld 1 

"A plea Of limltctlon is 2 rpecir3. &fens0 

vhloh must bo plonircd. ft cnn be r2iaod. only IQepoci21 exccptnon or plea, U.Xl.t2tiOn is 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 never bono 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, oncl on 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 l3glltS 0P 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, asi fallo-acr ; 

,% lfi .2 general 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 ciefcnse of 23xiitntion, 

ia a cult which my be filed a@:OLnst the 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 ~to pay, ,although the 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- Gobt Wh~?n it bc:ocim?rr able to do 30, GV#n thou&, 

the p6i*iod of 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 fnfury end i2ia ti.m 02 tilfng a~&l, but tha act 

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.marous oonatitutioml objeotims vero made to the 

I,eg.islaturo~s effo’rt to, revive the cmxte of rtot%o~. a$tfer it 

had becoae ,subjeat to a daferxze of 15.mitntiog. The court ex.- :~ 

procoed ‘$0180 doubt ae to the zwnrging of the ,atatutee of 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 .liaftation as 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 undewi the 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 .that neither a pounty nor a city can cmplaLn of hn act 

Of the LogieLatwe requiring it to pay a ‘debt which 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 ronaljled silent on the 

. COBrdb 

. 

Aasiatant .