Case Information

*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF l~x~g Q-CMAlW4 ArmwlrvM- i’

County Af;t;crney

Pltts@urg, Texas

Dar. 91r t

of recent ilate vhora e city of Plttabwg ha8 heretofor cant uctlon of oertaln ch wx?@ to ha%3 bsen’~ street 5qxxivt3mentq paid for LII calI

c tract. Yabu I

.cient oa& on

G thou %o*ur years etico been ooaplotod and tc were lamed, and slnoe tults arc more tti foul? approaiate yaw op%nicas ty now pays Lo ,JiXien and Austin onoy it ovos on thoeo strast Im- oh 1s more thtix four years past duo, vould’the mnbers of tha Cfig Counoll and. the CLty ,Trcnouycr become pQ3.?8OlUkls.ly'~lEb~e to the city for suoh paymnts?”

Article 5(9x-1, Movised Civil Statutes, gro- Qldea that --

~onornble s. A. &l&Et, paga a

“The lag of: ZI.~?~tcttS.ona Bhnll not be wmil- sblc in any suit unions lt bo speoif'lcally set '~ forth by the gmty who in his ruamer 5nvokes it a8 a defense.

!l!hpho rule that &zitatlon as a defense may be ~nlve& ia %wsely ntrrted In the CISU of Duokuorth v. DzllaG Co,wty mme tiprovezent l&strict, 11 6, 'i{. (26) 263, whom 3.t is cnld 1

"A plea Of limltctlon is 2 rpecir3. &fens0 vhloh must bo plonircd. ft cnn be r2iaod. only IQ- epoci21 exccptnon or plea, U.Xl.t2tiOn is R de- Sense that nay b3 vaived. Lt,~cnn nowr be reis~d by ,pneraY. dmxwror . Ancl, xlthou#I 1imitction ls nado a v~lie clefcxos by utatutcr, ~the poulrts have never bono out of their way to find some vay tp suatn3.n such n defense-, but lasvo.al~r~ys reguirod that it be pPOpePly presented byspe-. clnl ex5optIon or plea, oncl on appeal under a proper aoafgnmczit ob: erP0r.Y : s .~. Tt isoo?,2 establfshed th2t otntutes of U.mftatlon aura remediaLI, End 3.u no mar&w do they affect the subst111- tive l3glltS 0P Iitl~2JiUihu8,” 28 TC?i, SUP. 78; PoyIm V.: ~Csl&-sCll, 3. ?..~280; Chapman V, Hoo~ey’; 3. Il. $106. The correct prkwiple is ect %orth 3.11'28 Tex. Jur. asi fallo-acr ;

,% lfi .2 general rule; firmly sott&xI, that the statute of llnitatione Effects the remedy only, but hoes not destroy tho debt. There re- mains a noral oblQ2t;ion to pay; vhich consti- tutes good oonsidoration for c new grotise. . . ,’ The governing bo6y oE a mux!xipal corporation may waive the defense of ltiitation. If such a pies my be \r2ived, it logicnllg follovs that there is no absolute 6uty tiposod by Ian\* upon the governing bo2y to present the ciefcnse of 23xiitntion, ia a cult which my be filed a@:OLnst the crity, It therefore 'Sollovs that the govornlng body of 2 citynay procwd to pzy a clnin which is juot and upon ~hlch there is a moral obliga- tion ~to pay, ,although the dcfenae of, limitation might be lntor- posed Sn a ault brought to collect the claim, Tf; aa stated in yew letter, tlie C%ty of Pittnburg was finanadally mbarrasaed at, tho time this oblli-$tlon was ~ucwraQ and hse been unable to pay the mouat, ve 03a a6 no reason vhy the oufferage of its orei.tora 3hould laskitre It lqJ?on3iblc fm the city vollu3tarllg to yRy Cd3 honcet- Gobt Wh~?n it bc:ocim?rr able to do 30, GV#n thou&, the p6i*iod of limltat;ion uUdQr the statutes nay have iwsx. i

A e%tiler quaation prose in t!m c(?se of? State P. EllTott, 212 3, U. 69.5. In this C’lS6 Elliott, the plnl.ntiff, aeoured le~islntive pernioefon to sue the State fol* damages PCEkii.tbl~ ik-‘O~~ ~CX=3CllC~ illjUl+X! WCCiV& VilC VOXkb~ f-OX’ the i%ato raib3xia. llore thaa two ycara had olapeed betrreen tho tfne oi’ the fnfury end i2ia ti.m 02 tilfng a~&l, but tha act granting, pemxLsoloa to eue pzovidcd thai: linl.tst;bon nhould not rvn w&i1 tco gonrn after the date the act beome offactive.

!i!he Stcte attaakod tho statute on the @*ounds that at the tirno had becoae ,subjeat to a daferxze of 15.mitntiog. The court ex.- :~ I,eg.islaturo~s effo’rt to, revive the cmxte of rtot%o~. a$tfer it ‘$0180 doubt ae to the zwnrging of the ,atatutee of limit&- procoed the tions. Nu.marous oonatitutioml objeotims vero made to the iitili Vns file@, the cause of action ‘??a~ bowed by ltilta- k; :: ‘: . : i? ^[4] ticm, but hold that even iP the cla%?~ Were bmred,~ there m-8 no objoctioa to the LegkLatwe valving it. TUG Court se.?mdl

‘1.5oreover, no constitutional provIsIon reqtircd the State to plerd .liaftation as a Qcfense; hence its Ic@nlature vae nbt vIthout the paver, throu@ a meamtw of the chamcrter here involved, to waive it, such an act being 8, fomsrd look- one, and not therefore undewi the ban titerdictfng ex post faoto and retroactive statutes, O’Ikm4 v, State, ll.2 R, P. 146, 19 ft. E. 659, 2 L. R. A. 603, 8 Am.

State Reports 7263 Dsvia v. Da>~es, ti IMAx & Ed.~ (Pa.) SO; Lade v. Turnor, Ii0 Ga. 416.”

Applying ,thd #mm prf.naiploo, the Texas courts have held .that neither a pounty nor a city can cmplaLn of hn act Of the LogieLatwe requiring it to pay a ‘debt which has ,boBn -beFred by limitation. LIneatone County v. ~Robbins, S. tt.

28) 580~ (Coma, dpp. )J Count.,y of Caldwell’v. Qockatt, 4 S.Z.

07 (3up. Ct.); I.iellinger V, City of IIouaton, S. I?. 249 (Sup.

Ct.). ’

., . < ,’ haa ronaljled silent on the ‘i

.1 .

,, -.

I’. .

.

Aasiatant

. COBrdb