Written by: Eric Wolfram
1/21/2010 1:40 PM 

Two lawyers infringed trademark while an LLP, got sued, but let LLP expire after conduct, but before judgment against LLP.

Fifth Circuit holds that "debt" was incurred on date of judgment, which was after LLP expired, which meant individual liability, and also limitations on "debt" began no date of judgment, not date of tort. The Fifth Circuit did not deal with the meaning of "debt, and Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 16.004(a)(3).

Action for debt with which Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 5527 (repealed; now, this section) dealt was a much broader action than the technical common law action of debt, so that generally actions for money judgments were considered actions for debt within Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 5526 (repealed; see, now, § 16.003) if there was no writing, and were within Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 5527 (repealed; now, this section) where action was founded on or evidenced by a contract in writing. R. F. C. v. Peterson Bros., 1947, 160 F.2d 124. Limitation Of Actions 25(11); Limitation Of Actions 28(1)

“Actions for debt,” as used in Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 5526 (repealed; see, now, § 16.003) embraced all liabilities payable in money only when not founded upon a writing, whether based upon mere personal contract, specialty debt, or strictly legislative liability. In determining meaning of state statute of limitations, decisions of state court should be followed. Jones v. Canon, W.D.Tex.1933, 3 F.Supp. 49. Limitation Of Actions 21(1)

Action for damages under anti-trust laws was an action for “debt” within Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 5526 (repealed; see, now, § 16.003). Green v. Wilkinson, N.D.Tex.1955, 135 F.Supp. 309, affirmed 234 F.2d 120. Limitation Of Actions 28(1)

Trackback Print

Location: Blogs Comments from the Trenches