Court Opinion

ID: 9830483
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:14:36.75993+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:23.285732
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
Tbe cause of action, of plaintiff against defendant at least accrued when be was advised by tbe receiver that tbe company bad gone into the bands of a receiver. He could have then sued Mabry and Huff for any part of tbe $1,250 be bad sent Mabry which they had without authority used or permitted to be used to pay expenses, or bad converted to their own use, beyond tbe 2% per cent. There is no plea that of tbe amount subscribed, to wit, $5,000, Mabry or Huff concealed from appellant that 10 per cent, had been used for expense purposes, nor. is there any proof of concealment. In Powers v. Schubert, 220 S. W. 120, the San Antonio Court of Civil Appeals said: ' • -
*660“It appears to us that appellant’s theory is based upon a misconception of opinions which do not discuss the question whether the right to sue existed as soon as the wrongful act was committed, but whether the bar of the statute of limitations would be postponed by reason of fraudulent concealment.”
See further authorities cited in Davidson v. Atmar (Tex. Civ. App.) 243 S. W. 662, 664.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.