Skip to main content
· 7/1/1872

Stratton v. Johnston

Citations

  • 36 Tex. 90

Syllabus

<p>1. The stay laws of the 7th of December, 1861, and. of the 16th of December, 1863 (Paschal’s Digest, Article 5125), did not repeal the act of the 20th of March, 1848 (Paschal’s Digest, Article 229), which prescribes the mode . of establishing the liabilities of drawers and indorsers of bills of exchange and promissory notes ; but those laws closed the courts during the war, and thus, in effect; suits for establishing the liability of indorsers of promissory notes and bills of exchange were suspended until the first term of court after the close of the war.</p> <p>2. As the act of December 7th, 1861, had the effect to suspend the courts during the war, an action brought on a dishonored bill of exchange or promissory note to the first term of court after the close of the war, or to the second term, showing good cause for not bringing it to the first, will be regarded as sufficient diligence to bind the indorsers.</p> <p>3. The act of January 11th, 1862 (Paschal’s Digest, Article 234), merely gave an additional remedy to the one prescribed in Article 229 of Paschal’s Digest, for fixing the liabilities of indorsers of bills of exchange and promissory notes, and the holder of indorsed paper which fell due between the 7th of December, 1861, and September, 1865, could have fixed the liability of the indorsers either by protest or by bringing suit to the fall term of 1865, or to the next term, by setting out a sufficient excuse for not having brought it to the previous term.</p> <p>4. In an action against indorsers of a promissory note, brought to the second term of court after the maturity and dishonor of the note, the plaintiff alleged, as an excuse for not having brought suit to the first term, that he did not know of the time of holding the first term of court until it was too late to bring suit to that term, and that at the time of the holding of the first term of -court the defendants were notoriously insolvent. Held, that ignorance of the time of the holding of co

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • ultimately determining that Dr. Kabir was necessarily prejudiced by failing to receive ten days’ notice before termination as a rovider in the Medicaid program, where he could have brought his practice in § compliance with the regulations and thus avoided termination

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ogden

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.