Court Opinion

ID: 9767098
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:09:36.957849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:28.601523
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
On motion for rehearing respondents have raised the point that even if Article 5517, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes, does prevent the two-year statute of limitation, Article 5526, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes, from barring petitioner’s alleged cause of action, that Article 5544 will bar the city’s cause of action. Article 5544 is as follows:
“The period of limitation shall not be extended by the connection of one disability with another; and, when the law of limitation shall begin to run, it shall continue to run, notwithstanding any supervening disability of the party entitled to sue or liable to be sued.”
The trouble with respondents’ argument is that Article 5544 is a part of Title 91, just as is Article 5526, and 5517 keeps it from applying to incorporated cities. As quoted in our original opinion, “The right * * * of incorporated cities * * * shall not be barred by any of the provi*753sions of this Title, * * *. [Emphasis ours.]
Respondents make the further point that the City of Port Arthur was taking over said Water District No. 11 for the purpose of engaging in a proprietary enterprise and that Article 5517 should not he construed to immunize the city from the statutes of limitation in such a situation. They say that to do so would cause the statute to conflict with the equal protection of the law provisions of the Texas and United States Constitutions. They argue that the statute, as we have construed it, exempting cities from the effect of the limitation statutes in Title 91 is an unreasonable classification and is unconstitutional. They cite us to no cases so holding and we have not found any. We have concluded that the classification is not unreasonable.
We overrule respondents’ motion for rehearing.