Court Opinion

ID: 9829630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:29:33.960937+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:03.708848
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The appellant contends that this suit is barred because not filed mitil more than two years after the cause of action arose, and complains that we did not write on such assignment.
Appellant indorsed in writing on the checks that it guaranteed the prior indorsements and signed its corporate name thereto. When, in reliance thereon, the drawee paid the checks, this suit was for a debt where the indebtedness is evidenced by a contract in writing. Article 5527, subd. 1, R. S. It is not neeessary that the writing contain the words “I promise to pay.” The warranty of deed does not, and yet the appellate courts have not hesitated to apply that article to the suit. It is said that the four-year statute applies to a suit for a corporation dividend declared in favor of the named claimant and so shown in the minutes. Cavitt v. Amsler (Tex. Civ. App.) 242 S. W. 246, 247. Likewise, where charges for transportation were shown in a bill of lading, a suit to recover an excess in said charges is governed *307by the four-year statute. Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Southern Architectural Cement Co., 112 Tex. 139, 245 S. W. 644. All that was found to be necessary was that the fact agreement was in the writing. The rules of law which are necessary to-translate that agreement into a judgment furnish the “I promise to pay” as certainly as if the appellant had written them on the backs of the checks.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.