WILLIAM CHRISTY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
WILLIAM YOUNG
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court reversed a District Court judgment in a contract dispute between William Christy and William Young, holding that certain pleas, including Texas's ten-year statute of limitations, were deficient under the legal principles established in the companion case of Christy v. Scott. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice CURTIS.
In this case, -the sixth, eighth, ninth, and tenth pleas, are demurred to, and the demurrers are sustained, for the reasons assigned in the opiniondn the case-of Christy v. Scott. The tenth plea in this case of the ten years’ limitation law of Texas, is bad, for the same reasons, as the plea of the three years’ statute pleaded in that case. The judgment of the District Court is reversed, and'the case remanded for further procedings. Order. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the District Court of the United States for the District of Texas, and was argued by counsel; On consideration whereof, it is now' here ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause. be, and the same is hereby, reversed, with costs, and that this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the said District Court for further proceedings to be had therein, in conformity to the opinion of this court, and as to law and justice shall appertain..