Chevrier v. Robert
| Decision Date | 11 January 1887 |
| Citation | 6 Mont. 319 |
| Parties | CHEVRIER v. ROBERT. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Silver Bow county.
Action on a judgment. Judgment for defendant on plea of the statute of limitations. Plaintiff appealed.
William Scallon and W. W. Dixon, for appellant.
W. F. Sanders, for respondent.
This appeal is taken on the judgment roll, and presents but one question, viz., whether plaintiff's action is barred by the provisions of the statute of limitations. Rev. St. § 55, p. 50. The action is on a judgment rendered at Montreal, in the dominion of Canada, in favor of the appellant, and against the respondent, on the sixth day of November, 1877. The defendant, by his answer, and the amendment thereto, denied some of the allegations of the complaint, and pleaded the statute of limitations, claiming that he had resided in the state of Nevada from May, 1876, until November, 1884, and that the cause of action sued on arose in Nevada; that the statute of limitations of Nevada had run against plaintiff's action; and that, being barred there, plaintiff's action was also barred here. The case was tried by the court without a jury, and findings were filed. The court found that all the allegations of plaintiff's complaint had been proved, but found in favor of the defendant on his plea of the statute of limitations, and dismissed the action.
It is conceded by counsel for respondent that the Canadian judgment could have been sued upon in the dominion of Canada at any time after its rendition, and no question is made whether or not a cause of action arose in Canada before the respondent emigrated to Nevada. It is not necessary to consider any question arising under that view of the case.
The only question then arising for discussion by this court is this: Whether, in an action upon a demand arising in Canada, and sued upon in Montana, a defendant can interpose the statute of limitations of Nevada, on the ground that since the cause of action arose, he had resided in Nevada long enough for the statute of limitations of Nevada to bar the demand. This question was decided by the court below in the affirmative, and on this ground alone judgment was therein rendered for the respondent.
Section 55 of the Montana Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: “When the cause of action shall have arisen in any other state or territory of the United States, or in any foreign country, and by the laws thereof, an action cannot be maintained against a person by reason of the lapse of time, no action thereon shall be commenced against him in this territory.” Rev. St. Mont. § 55, p. 50.
It is conceded that the cause of action in this case would not be barred in Canada nor in Montana, except under this section, but that it would have been barred in Nevada during the residence of the respondent in that state. Before we can apply this statute to the case at bar, it is necessary to first ascertain where the cause of action arose.
It is admitted that the cause of action first arose in Canada. Did it arise again in Nevada? If so, it also arose again in Montana, in November, 1884, when the respondent took up his residence here; and it may have arisen in a dozen other states or territories where he may have temporarily resided, since the judgment was rendered in Canada. We do not believe this is a fair interpretation of the law. A cause of action can arise but once; and, when it once accrues, it remains in force until it is extinguished, or satisfied, or barred by statute.
When an action is brought in the courts of this territory, on a cause of action arising beyond its limits, and the statutes of limitation are invoked, it is only necessary to inquire what are the statutes of Montana, and, under section 55 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to inquire, further, what are the statutes of the state or country where the cause of action arose or originated, or, it may be expressed, when the demand was created, and first became enforceable? Any other interpretation of the law would compel the creditor to trail the debtor from one country to another, and ascertain how long he resided in any particular jurisdiction, and to search the statute books of every foreign country through which he may have passed, and wherein he may have tarried, for business or pleasure, to see...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anglo-American Land, Mortgage & Agency Co. v. Lombard
...Court of Nevada followed the earlier decisions in Illinois. Other cases declare what seems to be a more reasonable rule. Chevrier v. Robert, 6 Mont. 319, 12 P. 702, was action brought in Montana upon a judgment rendered in Canada. The Montana statute of limitations was like that of Illinois......
-
West v. Theis
...17 N.E. 75). There are also cases from other states that, although not directly in point, tend to support the latter contention. In Chevrier v. Robert, supra, the supreme court Montana had under consideration the identical question presented in this case, and in considering their statute, s......
- Thex v. Shreve
-
The Hays Land and Investment Company v. Bassett
...721; Banking Ass. v. Com. Nat. Bank, 157 Ill. 524, 41 N.E. 919; John Shillito Co. v. Richardson, 102 Ky. 51, 42 S.W. 847; Chevrier v. Robert, 6 Mont. 319, 12 P. 702.) It urged by the appellant that after the maturity of the obligation the failure to pay is a continuing fault, and that for t......