Connoly v. Hammond

Citations

• 58 Tex. 11
• 1 Tex. L. R. 585
• 1882 Tex. LEXIS 202

Syllabus

<p>1. Statute construed — Limitation — Second suit.— In trespass to try (itle tho plaintiff set up a title inconsistent with one on which he relied in a former suit against the same defendant, for the same land, which former suit was prosecuted to final judgment for the defendant. Held,</p> <p>(1) The pendency of the first suit did not stop the running of the statute of limitations.</p> <p>(2) Nor is this rule varied by tho fact that, pending the first suit, the plaintiff setup by amendment the title relied on in the second action, to which amendment a demurrer was sustained without exception thereto being taken by plaintiff.</p> <p>2. Statute of limitations — Fraud.— Neither fraud alone, or ignorance of ils existence, will stop the running of the statute of limitations; the ignorance which effects this result must be attended with such concealment of the fraud as to prevent its discovery by the use of reasonable diligence; and this applies also to cases of stale demand.</p> <p>3. Laches.— One seeking equitable relief against fraud or mistake is chargeable with laches from the time it ought to have been discovered.</p> <p>4. Fact case.— See opinion for facts under which it was held that, if a fraud had been committed regarding a conveyance of land, there was no such concealment of it, and no such diligence to discover its existence, as would prevent tho bar of limitation.</p>