Court Opinion

ID: 9834497
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:38:25.808375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:16.171262
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In our original opinion we held plaintiff’s suit was one for rescission of an oral contract.
In its motion for rehearing, appellee complains that this court in its opinion overlooked the fact that the suit of appellant was based upon an implied oral contract. It is stated in the motion that if this court should hold that the amended petition pleads a cause of action on the ground of fraud and asks for rescission, nevertheless the appellant would be asking for the rescission of an alleged “implied oral contract.” In that connection it is stated in the motion: “It is immaterial whether the appellant asks for damages for breach of an implied oral contract or whether appellant asks for rescission of an implied oral contract. The fact remains that it is alleged by appellant to be an implied oral contract, ‘where the indebtedness is not evidenced by a contract in writing.’ ”
As we understand it, the point here involved is not so much the nature of the contract as it is the plaintiff’s right to rescind the same within four years, regardless of whether the contract was oral or in writing. If the appellant’s suit is one for rescission of a contract, the decisions are uniform to the effect that the four-year statute of limitation, and not the two-year statute of limitation, applies, and that regardless of whether the contract was oral or in writing. Article 5529, R.S. 1925; Evans v. Goggan, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 129, 23 S.W. 854; Texas Co-op. Inv. Co. v. Clark (Tex.Civ.App.) 212 S.W. 245; Id. (Tex.Com.App.) 231 S.W. 381.
These authorities disclose that an action to rescind a contract comes under the provisions of the above statute. Interpreting the plaintiff’s cause of action as one for rescission of a contract not in writing, we applied the limitation prescribed by the above statute. If our interpretation of the appellant’s suit is correct, the above conclusion is sound.
There is therefore no conflict in this holding and that made in the following decisions, as asserted by the appellee: Davidson v. Commercial Nat. Bank of Brady (Tex.Civ.App.) 59 S.W.(2d) 949; Kuhn et al. v. Shaw (Tex.Civ.App.) 223 S.W. 343; Ferguson v. Washburn et al. (Tex.Civ.App.) 4 S.W.(2d) 574; Citizens’ Nat. Bank of Cameron et al. v. Good Roads Gravel Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 236 S.W. 153; Walter A. Wood Mowing Mach. Co. v. Hancock, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 302, 23 S.W. 384; Harrison v. City of Sulphur Springs (Tex.Civ.App.) 35 S.W. 744; City of Wink v. R. B. George Mach. Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 73 S.W. (2d) 653. A casual reading of these cases will disclose that not one of them involved limitation as applied to the right of rescission of a contract in a suit brought for that purpose. This being a rescission case, they are not in point and we pretermit a discussion of these authorities with which we are alleged to be in conflict. Considering the nature of the cause involved in each of those suits, the proper period of limitation was correctly applied.
The manner in which this case comes before us, nothing is presented or considered except the fundamental error upon which our decision is based. The special exception was first presented for consideration, sustained, and the cause dismissed. Naturally, we have taken the allegations of the pleadings as true and we do not think that under the law we would be warranted in expressing an opinion upon other phases or merits, if any, of the lawsuit.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.