Court Opinion

ID: 9827688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:46:38.345324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:34.553141
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
By an assignment of error not disposed of on original hearing, it was pointed out that although plaintiff’s original petition was filed within the period of limitation of two years (Rev. St. 1925, art. 5526), the .petition was not good as against a general demurrer, *907and therefore the amended petition filed after the expiration of two years was subject to the defendant’s plea of limitation, which the court overruled.
In the original petition, plaintiff alleged that it sold to the defendants merchandise amounting to $3,361.77 and that there had been paid on that account $3,604.46, hut it was further alleged that there was due on the account $1,216.96, for which judgment was sought. Even though it could be said that those allegations should be construed as conclusively showing that the account had been overpaid (which we doubt) and leaving the petition subject to general demurrer, yet it was sufficient to arrest the statute of limitation. 28 Tex. Jur. § 97, p. 190, and section 120, p. 217. Accordingly, the assignment now under discussion is overruled.
We adhere to our former conclusions that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a finding of the trial court that M. A. Joy ratified the account of his employee, Per-nell, in purchasing the goods in controversy. Hence M. A. Joy’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Our attention has been called to further correspondence between J. W. Chancellor, who became president of the defendant corporation, with attorneys for the plaintiff, which, together with his testimony on the witness stand, was sufficient to support a finding of the trial court that he, as president of the corporation, likewise ratified the purchase of the goods in controversy from the plaintiff by Pernell.
Accordingly appellee’s motion for rehearing is granted, our former judgment reversing the judgment against the defendant corporation is set aside, and the judgment of- the trial court is affirmed in its entirety.