Story v. Runkle

Citations

• 32 Tex. 398

Syllabus

<p>1— A writ of error could not lawfully issue in October, 1866, to a judgment rendered in 1860. The ordinance of the Convention of 1866, respecting the statutes of limitation, did not authorize the issuance of writs of error when more than two years had elapsed since the rendition of judgment.</p> <p>2— There is a material difference between ordinary statutes of limitation and the restriction of two years imposed upon writs of error. This restriction is a matter controlling the question whether any jurisdiction of the cause has been acquired by this court, and need not he specially pleaded.</p> <p>Note by the Reporter.—The opinion is almost entirely devoted to proving that the ordinance of 1866 can not operate to restore or allow a right of action, if the time has already elapsed in which the suit was barred; hut inasmuch as this general question does not seem to he necessarily involved in the case, and inasmuch as the present court, organized under the constitution of 1869, has come to a contrary conclusion (in the case of Bender v. Crawford) on the similar ordinance of the latter year, it is deemed best to omit from these head notes the general positions assumed in the opinion.</p>