Duffy v. Hartsock
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | MILLER |
| Citation | Duffy v. Hartsock, 187 Va. 406, 46 S.E.2d 570 (1948) |
| Decision Date | 01 March 1948 |
| Parties | DUFFY. v. HARTSOCK. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wise County; George Morton, Judge.
Suit by Maud R. Duffy, assignee, etc., against Ruth M. Hartsock, to subject described realty to alleged lien of a judgment against defendant. From a decree of dismissal, plaintiff appeals.
Decree affirmed.
Before HUDGINS, C. J., and GREGORY, BUCHANAN, STAPLES, and MILLER, JJ.
Vernoy B. Tate, of Wise, for appellant
Fred B. Greear and Wm. T. Bowen, both of Norton, for appellee.
This is a suit to enforce the alleged lien of a judgment against real estate. From the allegations of the bill and the stipulation filed by counsel, the undisputed facts are as follows:
On the 23rd day of August, 1928, the First National Bank of Coeburn obtained judgment for $8500, with interest and attorney's fees, against W. H. Hartsock and Ruth M. Hartsock, his wife, in the Circuit Court of Wise County, Virginia. The judgment was duly docketed in the clerk's office of that court. For valuable consideration and by appropriate notation upon the margin of the judgment docket, it was thereafter assigned to the appellant.
W. H. Hartsock is now dead. He and appellee, Ruth M. Hartsock, were residents of Wise County, Virginia, when the judgment was obtained. They thereafter moved to the State of Kentucky where they resided at the time of his death. From the date of their departure until suit was instituted, appellee remained without Virginia for such length of time that the period which she had been in this State since the judgment was obtained was not as much as ten years. No execution had issued on the judgment and no scire facias was ever brought to revive it.
Early in the year 1945, appellee returned to Wise County and by deed dated February 15, 1945, acquired certain real estate in the town of Norton briefly described as lots 23 and 24, of Block 36, Plat. 5.
The pleadings now recited necessarily constitute a repetition of some of the above facts.
On the 19th day of March, 1946, appellant instituted this chancery suit to subject the above-described real estate to the alleged lien of her judgment.
Appellee interposed a plea of the statute of limitations; that more than ten years had elapsed since the rendition of the judgment; that no execution had ever issued or scire facias been brought thereon, and that the right to issue such execution or bring scire facias ceased at the expiration of ten years from the date of the judgment.
Thereupon, appellant asserted that appellee was a resident of Virginia when judg ment was obtained, but departed therefrom; that the accumulated time she had been within this State since the date of the judgment, both before her departure and since her return, had not been as much as ten years; and that the time she had been out of the State constituted an obstruction to the prosecution of appellant's right of action to enforce such judgment.
The trial court concluded that appellant's judgment was barred by the statute of limitations and by decree of January 28, 1947, dismissed her bill of complaint.
Appellant earnestly contends, that under the provisions of section 5825 of the Code of Virginia as in force at the time of the judgment, i. e., 1928, appellee's absence from the State tolled the statute of limitations for such period and that the statute as it existed at the date of the judgment is controlling.
Appellee asserts that section 5825 was amended by the Acts of 1936, p. 251, and 1938, p. 8; that each of those amendments applies to judgments obtained theretofore as well as thereafter and nullified that provision of section 5825 which had previously tolled the statute as to judgment debtors who depart from the State of Virginia.
The question presented requires construction of sections 5825, 6474, 6477 and 6478 of the Code of Virginia. This must be done by careful consideration of section 5825 as it read at the date of the judgment and also of the pertinent amendments subsequently made. The effect of these amendments upon sections 6474, 6477 and 6478 must likewise be determined.
The four sections enumerated as they now appear are as follows:
"Upon a contract which was made and was to be performed in another State or country by a person who then resided therein, no action shall be maintained after the right of action thereon is barred either by the laws of such State or country or of this State." Code 1887, § 2933, Acts 1897-8, p. 441, Code 1919, § 5825, Acts 1936, p. 251, Acts 1938, p. 8, Acts 1940, p. 438.
Section 6474: Code 1887, § 3573, Acts 1922, p. 570.
Section 6477: Code 1887, § 3577, Acts 1942, c. 125.
Section 6478: "No execution shall issue, nor any scire facias or action be brought, on a judgment in this State, other than for the Commonwealth, after the time prescribed by the preceding section, except that, in computing the time, any time during which the right to sue out execution on the judgment is suspended by the terms thereof, or by legal process, shall be omitted; and sections fifty-eight hundred and twenty-three to fifty-eight hundred and twenty-six, inclusive, and section fifty-eight hundred and thirty shall apply to the right to bring such action or scire facias in like manner as to any right, action, or scire facias mentioned in those sections; and except that when the judgment is for the penalty of a bond, but to be discharged by the payment of what is then ascertained, and such sums as may be afterwards assessed or found due upon a scire facias on the judgment, assigning further breach of the bond, such scire facias may be brought within ten years after such breach." Code 1887, § 3578.
Section 6477 has been amended once since 1928. This amendment was by Acts of 1942, page 162. It extends the time in which an execution may issue and amends it in other particulars. This amendment is, however, unimportant to the question presented as no execution was ever issued or any scire facias brought on this judgment
Section 5825 has been thrice amended, namely, in the years 1936, 1938, and 1940. At the time of the rendition of the judgment against appellee in 1928 it read as follows:
...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Montgomery v. Commonwealth
...then concludes that the latter part of the statute is procedural, and so it would apply at a later trial. See Duffy v. Hartsock , 187 Va. 406, 416, 46 S.E.2d 570 (1948) ("Though contractual rights may not be impaired or vested property interest destroyed, mere matters of procedure and remed......
-
Roderick v. Hough
...as remedical, or affects procedure only.' Lester v. State Comp. Com'r, 123 W.Va. 516, 521, 16 S.E.2d 920, 923. See also Duffy v. Hartsock, 187 Va. 406, 46 S.E.2d 570. 'When a new statute deals with procedure only, prima facie, it applies to all actions--those which have accrued or are pendi......
-
Inv. Assocs. v. Summit Assocs., Inc.
...v. Cary, 196 Ohio App.3d 132, 139, 962 N.E.2d 812 (2011); Berly v. Sias, 152 Tex. 176, 181, 255 S.W.2d 505 (1953); Duffy v. Hartsock, 187 Va. 406, 415, 46 S.E.2d 570 (1948). A survey of other jurisdictions reveals that the circumstances in which a revival proceeding has been deemed a new ac......
-
Sias v. Berly
...v. Rafaelle, 381 Ill. 486, 45 N.E.2d 651, 144 A.L.R. 401; Shefts v. Oklahoma Co., 192 Okl. 483, 137 P.2d 589; Duffy v. Hartsock, 187 Va. 406, 46 S.E.2d 570, p. 574 (Hn. 3); 34 C.J. § 1038, p. 675; 49 C.J.S., Judgments, § 548, p. 1005; 144 A.L.R. 403; 94 Am.Dec. 222; 122 A.S.R. (6) Plaintiff......