Court Opinion

ID: 9761448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:43:06.913335+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:23.783331
License: Public Domain

CORNELIUS, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the result reached by Justice Bleil’s opinion, but for a different reason. I recognize that Schoonmaker v. Clardy, 244 S.W. 124 (Tex.Com.App.1922, judgment adopted), was decided prior to the amendment of Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5539b and at a time when the “different cause of action” test was dispositive of the limitation issue. I believe, however, that even under the “new, distinct or different transaction” test which now applies, the description in an amended trespass to try title petition of an entirely different tract of land from that described in the previous pleadings would *185constitute a declaration upon a new, distinct and different transaction. Nevertheless, that need not change the result here, because the appellant and the appellee, when the error in the description was discovered, entered into a written stipulation by which they agreed that the tract as described in the amended pleading was the same tract of land claimed by both of them and which was the subject of the lawsuit, both under the original and the amended pleadings. Having so stipulated, appellant will not now be heard to say otherwise, and contend that the amended pleading pertained to a new, distinct or different matter from the first.