Aldrete v. Demitt's Heirs

Citations

• 32 Tex. 575

Syllabus

<p>1— Unless a subsequent promise contain an acknowledgment of the debt, as a subsisting debt, and contain a promise to pay it, the bar of the statute of limitations will not be affected by it.</p> <p>2— A written undertaking to pay a demand at a future time, unless the promissor shall in the meantime be able to find and produce a receipt against it, which receipt he claims to have been given on a payment formerly made of the demand, does not remove the bar of the statute of limitations.</p> <p>3—See the opinion of the court for a written instrument relied on to remove the har of the statute, hut which is held to he insufficient for the purpose,, inasmuch as it is in the nature of a wager that the party making it will produce a receipt against the demand.</p> <p>4—The case of Coles v. Kelsey, 2 Texas, 555, referred to as laying down the-correct rule respecting subsequent promises, relied on to countervail the-statute of limitations.</p>