Court Opinion

ID: 9643900
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:43:16.76889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:05.426677
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
By their fourth point of error in this appeal, the Dillards sought to raise the equitable doctrines of laches, stale demands and equitable estoppel. We overruled the point for failure to assert these matters by affirmative pleadings, as required by Rule 94, T.R.C.P. By their motion for rehearing, the Dillards have brought to our attention pleadings which we now feel were sufficient to raise the issues of laches and stale demands.
However, we hold that these equitable defenses are totally inapplicable to the instant case. Laches and stale demand are peculiarly available against the assertion of equitable rights, and may not be invoked to resist the enforcement of a purely legal right. Reynolds v. Farmers and Merchants National Bank of Nocoma, 135 S.W.2d 556 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1940, no writ); Railroad Commission of Texas v. Jackson, 315 S.W.2d 193 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1958, writ ref’d n. r. e.); See 35 Tex.Jur.2d Laches and Stale Demands § 3 at 462 (1962).
If an alleged cause of action (as we have before us) comes within a specific provision of the statute of limitations, then the equitable defenses of laches and stale demand generally do not apply. Transportation League, Inc. v. Morgan Express, Inc., 436 S.W.2d 378 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1969, writ ref’d n. r. e.). The instant case is such an action.1
We have carefully considered the Dil-lards’ motion for rehearing and find that it is without merit and should be overruled.

. The applicable limitations provision is found at Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5520 (Vernon 1958).