Case Name: LOFTUS v. GREEN
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-01-23
Citations: 153 S.W. 1198
Docket Number: 
Parties: LOFTUS v. GREEN.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 153
Pages: 1198–1198

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.