Cotulla v. Urbahn, 104 Tex. 208, 135 S.W. 1159 (Tex. 1911) involved the debt sued on by Urbahn and a debt Cotulla owed a bank. Urbahn sued Cotulla, and to avoid the limitations bar, produced letters Cotulla had written to the bank acknowledging the debt in general terms and promising to pay that debt. However, because the promise was not made to Urbahn (the case does not indicate if Urbahn has any connection to the bank) and because the letters were not addressed to him and did not refer to his debt, the letters could not revive Cotulla's debt to Urbahn. (Cotulla, 135 S.W. at 1161.)