*1 204 782; year Rep. Hyman, a Am. 512; Kerfoot v. 52 Ill. file instant suit. The statutes St. to the only of limitation fix in the limit of time 9 538. C. J. may debtor, findings which a creditor creditor cannot be sue his and the of and of The fact conclusions by prejudiced delay, pro- theory upon law another reveal that which statutory bring vided within judgment he suit such appellee that, his for was was rendered period. appellee, by appel his since lant letter written to fully developed. ap- By The case has been executed, was disclosed before the deed pellee’s evidence, judgment copurchaser own appellant should have he a to .that of the was hijn against been for rendered the amount Levisay, knowledge part land with on the such prayed appellant for. It therefore our order that put appellee is of might upon it on notice that judgment reversed, thereby trial the and that of of profit the court he and therefrom. Where judgment duty here rendered in favor appellant pur he of it became the to appellee appellant against further, inquiry that, pur for the sum of the and it sue had cent, $1,240, per interest from inquiry, with 6 thereon it sued such would have discovered January together 3, 1926, date, this to with of the side all appellee duty the terms of contract between Levisay. all costs incurred in this in purchaser court and and the No such the. appellant. below. upon right court had rested It the upon rely implicitly good Reversed rendered. and its to the faith of duty agent, gate no to investi and owed whatever agent, the acts in to of its order deter agent truly represent whether such mine was FARMER v. BURROUGHS ADDING MACH. ing it. In case this this contention of the (No. 1714.) CO. appellee by is made still less tenable fact the appellant, that in his to be letter written Appeals Court of of Civil Texas. Beaumont. executed, informing of fore the it 19, deed was Oct. 1928. purchaser, terms of the his contract with the Rehearing 7, Denied Nov. 1928. anything regarding pro he failed to spective profits his state trade, in the and then conclud these ed his letter with words: “Have cov everything can think allow

ered him to gate I of.” To profit by appellant’s failure investi to Levisay had his with after he contract insup appellant manifestly thus written is portable. ground upon judg the Another which ment of the trial court was based is disclosed 4, in the court’s of fol conclusion law No. as lows: plaintiff acquiesced “That has in and ratified the acts defendant in of connection with said sale, upon knowledge notice, full and and induced thereon, prejudice, defendant to act to his and estopped asserting any is now against from claim growing defendant, out of the same.” (cid:127)Briefly upon plea which the facts this of estoppel ap- was are as follows: After based pellantwas fully of advised the side contract appellee thej purchaser, between and had and Beaumont, Shaw, appellant. for A. L. of copy thereof, been furnished with a K. one P. Beaumont, appellee. Pye, Cunningham B. F. for of it for sued a commission for ne- gotiating Levisay. the this sale of land to See WALKER, Security J. This suit was instituted on Cunning- Bank of State Pearsall v. day April, 1923, by (Tex. appellee, the 20th of App.) Bur ham when that cause in Civ. 296 S. W. 678. That roughs Adding Company, designating appellant Machine served was with citation in corporation incorporated requested itself a by appellee under and it to it assist Michigan, defending virtue of pay of the laws the state of attorney's suit the and the principal place appellee with its pay fees domicile of therefor. That and busi did one- county, Mich., against attorney’s appel ness lant, fees, of in ap- half pellant such Wayne; and did assist upon Farmer, mortgage defending H. a in W. chattel that suit. That an of- note, claiming by appellant $163.82, appellant given a balance due of ficer of the bank came to Coman- “Burroughs Adding che on suit, the of to occasion the Machine trial of that Company” payment adding appellee and for there in two of its associated with and co- operated by appellant “Burroughs thereof, with him in Add the machines sold defense ing Company,” payable mentioning against without and its the at claim Machine him any plaintiff prayed asserted in this The for for suit. We fail Beaumont office. to see ele- judgment claim, estoppel facts, ments of in these in of its nor the for the amount and appellant mortgage

further fact that waited more than lien its ma foreclosure of its on

205 many parties amendments filed chines. Both duly of the of Missouri” was filed laws State which this pleadings. from trial The to their 1919, day August, of “on 28th the his office in upon plain prosecuted appeal was had was * * * hereby to is is entitled and and petition, original wherein fifth amended tiff’s permission granted in the State do to business Adding Burroughs Ma the named itself it of Texas.” a Mis Company, as itself and described chine souri Opinion. appellant corporation. a had While verdict, Appelleé'requested on an instructed legal raising many questions, long answer theory claim its that the assertion of the pleas, by special isit by and demurrers both posses against appellant, sion, production’, the and by say raised issue that he the to sufficient offering chattel in of the evidence and upon not the plea was the claim sued that his property ownership note, mortgage as established its Burroughs Adding Com Machine of ' law, made that no issue was of and a matter against Appellee corporation. pany, Missouri the action, and its of its title to cause by allegation note the that it held no made indorsement made. be circumstances none could under the assignment, no tendered and or proposition appellee the trial and On this proof of proof ownership, no issue. It offered on that received, in error. were The evidence court together possession note of the other than excluded, was of which with that all evidence, upon. Upon of the conclusion sued beyond controversy admissible, the showed by in judgment trial court was instructed the corpo separate of two distinct and existence rations against appellant appellee for all of fa'vor Adding bearing Burroughs the name duly Appellant prayed has for. the relief prosecuted (Machine Company, one the the under chartered appeal. of own issue his On the Michigan laws laws the of and the other under note, following ership facts and of the the by of Missouri. The suit was instituted evidence, in or tendered were in circumstances Michigan corporation, claiming own to appellant: by evidence company cause the of ing of action. This went out original by (a) petition Bur- was filed The by the a mere ease amendment substitut Michigan roughs Adding Company, a Machine corporation of the the Missouri for name corporation, (b) appellant to of offered The Michigan corporation, that of the al with no manager Ledwidge, prove by the .Charles legation of a transfer of the cause of action. Adding Burroughs of office the Beaumont the clearly The evidence issue raised that the the Company, ma- him and who sold the Machine chine in belonged, inception, its claim gan at to the Michi question, copy of that forwarded a he .corporation, already said, and as there mortgage (Burroughs Add- note to the chattel ing ty., pleading proof was neither nor that it had Detroit, Wayne Company, coun- Machine assigned rights appellee. excluded, its therein It is to (c) Mich., but this evidence was well-recognizedlaw the of “no this state that Ledwidge opened that he The witness testified person upon contract, except sue a can he be through Beaumont office business City, the and did party privity to a or in with it.” House v. officeat the district the district headquarters; Kansas Co., 233, Houston Water Works W. 88 Tex. 31 S. that he re- made some of his 179, 532; Fidelity L. R. A. & 28 U. S. ports pany, Burroughs Adding to Machine Com- Guaranty (Tex. App.) Co. v. Thomas 156 Civ. Detroit, Wayne Mich.; county, that he Gulf, 573; & W. C. F. R. S. S. Co. Bart v. by sent of the him some collections made at (Tex. App.) 56, lett Civ. 75 S. W. Burroughs Adding the local Company, to office Machine and Reversed remanded. Detroit, Mich.; he sent and that given by appellant some the checks of himto Rehearing. On payment question part for in machines in the original opinion In our we were not accu- Burroughs Adding Machine, Detroit, to Mich. saying testimony: appellee’s in of rate “It cheeks when These offeredin evidence showed proof ownership, offered no of other than the by Burroughs Adding indorsement Machine possession upon.” Appellee of the note sued Company, Detroit, deposit by Mich,, and that possession collection, did not have which it offered as a note. company of the sale contract (d) for The trial court permit on Ledwidge testify This contract refused to Mr. to proposed purchase adding employed represent principal its face to that he his the two counsel to upon stipulations principal, representing Burroughs troit, machines the terms and set his was that Company, Adding in De- out the contract. This contract was ex- Machine Mich, duplicate, original (e) ecuted in with the Appellee and The the trial excluded the was filed court county county. secretary clerk of certificate of the Michi- Jefferson of state of gan Adding only photo- Burroughs corporation duly Ma- offered in effect a to the that evidence copy Company original, the static chine a incor- of and it was was not porated state, possession it with shown that ever had in ei- under the its laws of that Detroit, duplicate copies. principal city ther of the its in of state With this addi- office the Michigan, Appellee (f) original tion in to the statement made in of the evidence the offered opinion, by secretary Reynolds, 917, of the Webb v. certificate of the state 207 of S. W. Texas, copy Appeals, certifying directly the of state of of the Commission that a is in sustaining Burroughs Adding point, incorporation articles Machine our of of conclusions. “incorporated Company rehearing for the The motion under is overruled.