City of Macon ex rel. Little v. Sparrow
| Decision Date | 05 November 1917 |
| Citation | 198 S.W. 1136,197 Mo.App. 654 |
| Parties | CITY OF MACON ex rel. MILDRED E. LITTLE and A. E. LITTLE, executors of the estate of A. B. LITTLE, deceased, Appellants, v. JAMES D. SPARROW and LON HAYNER, Respondents |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Macon Circuit Court.--Hon. Nat M. Shelton, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
William O. Cave for appellants.
R. B Dysart for respondents.
This is a suit to enforce liens of tax bills issued by the city of Macon against the property of the defendants. The tax bills were issued on October 4, 1906; suit was brought to enforce the liens of the same on September 27, 1911, within five years of their date. In the month of September, 1912, the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution. On April 23 1913, within one year from the date of the dismissal of the suit, but more than five years from the date of the issuance of the tax bills, suit was again brought. The answer, among other things, alleges that suit was not commenced within five years and also pleads the Statutes of Limitations in bar to plaintiffs' right to enforce the liens of the tax bills. At the close of plaintiffs' testimony the court sustained a demurrer to the evidence.
The turning point in this case is whether the provisions of section 1900, Revised Statutes 1909, are applicable, being the statute which gives plaintiffs one year after a non-suit within which to bring another suit, provided that the original suit was brought within the time specified by the general Statutes of Limitations, even though the second suit was not brought within that time.
These tax bills were issued under the statute relating to cities of the third class (Laws of 1901, p. 63), reenacted in the Revised Statutes of 1909, section 9254, and again amended and reenacted in the Laws of 1911. [Laws of 1911, p. 337.] In this statute is found the provision that the tax bills created by virtue thereof "shall be a lien against the lot or tract of land described in same for a period of five years after date of issue."
It is the contention of the defendants that the statute in controversy provides its own limitation as to when a suit may be brought and comes within the provision of section 1907, Revised Statutes 1909, which provides that section 1900, Revised Statutes 1909, "shall not be extended to any action which is or shall be otherwise limited by any statute, but such actions shall be brought within the time limited by such statute."
As we view it, the statute under which these tax bills were issued limits the time within which suit may be brought to enforce the liens of such tax bills to five years, and as it contains its own period of limitation it comes within the provisions of section 1907, Revised Statutes, 1909, and not those of section 1900, Revised Statutes 1909. [Clark v. Railroad, 219 Mo. 524, and cases therein cited.]
While the...
To continue reading
Request your trial