Fid. & Cas. Co. of New York v. Jasper Furniture Co.

Decision Date11 October 1917
Docket NumberNo. 23271.,23271.
Citation186 Ind. 566,117 N.E. 258
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
PartiesFIDELITY & CASUALTY CO. OF NEW YORK v. JASPER FURNITURE CO.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; John L. Bretz, Judge.

Action by the Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York against the Jasper Furniture Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Transferred from Appellate Court under section 1405, Burns' Ann. St. 1914. Affirmed.

Albert N. Funkhouser, Arthur F. Funkhouser, and Robert D. Markel, all of Evansville, for appellant. R. M. Milburn, of Indianapolis, and Bomar Traylor, of Jasper, for appellee.

SPENCER, J.

Under a policy contract dated March 2, 1903, appellant insured appellee for a period of 12 months from that date against loss from common-law or statutory liability for damages on account of bodily injuries, fatal or nonfatal, accidentally suffered within the period of the policy by any employé or employés of appellee during the course of his or their employment. As compensation for that insurance appellee paid to appellant a premium in the sum of $134, which premium was, under the terms of the contract, based on the amount of compensation to employés which, it was estimated, would be expended by appellee during the period of the policy. It was further stipulated that if the compensation actually paid in that period should prove to be greater than the amount of the original estimate, appellee should pay the additional premium thus earned. The present action was instituted on May 18, 1914, to recover an additional premium alleged to be due under this provision of the contract. In its answer to the complaint, appellee relies chiefly on the ten-year statute of limitations (section 295, cl. 5, Burns 1914), and we are required first to determine the applicability of that statute.

In this connection it is to be borne in mind that a failure to discover a cause of action does not, like its concealment, operate to suspend the statute of limitation. Jackson v. Jackson, 149 Ind. 238, 242, 47 N. E. 963;Ware v. State ex rel., 74 Ind. 181, 196.

A cause of action accrues, so that limitations begin to run, at the moment its owner has a legal right to sue on it, except where extrinsic facts, postponing the operation of the statute, are interposed. Farneman v. Farneman, 46 Ind. App. 453, 457, 90 N. E. 775, 91 N. E. 968; 25 Cyc. 1065, and authorities cited.

As the claim sued on in this action is for money alleged to be due under a written contract, no demand for payment was necessary in order to fix the liability of appellee, but the additional premium, if any was owing, was legally due when the term of the policy expired on March 2, 1904. This action must then have been commenced within 10 years from that date, unless other facts exist which were sufficient to postpone the operation of the statute.

Appellant makes no charge that appelle...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Hardin v. Grenada Bank, 32612
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 9, 1938
    ... ... Fidelity, ... etc., Co. v. Jasper Furniture Co., 186 Ind. 566, 117 ... N.E. 258; 37 C. J ... 185, 102 Am. St. Rep. 118, 66 L.R.A. 258, I Ann ... Cas. 386 ... It is ... well established that ... ...
  • Hardin v. Grenada Bank
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 9, 1938
    ... ... Fidelity, ... etc., Co. v. Jasper Furniture Co., 186 Ind. 566, 117 ... N.E. 258; 37 C. J ... 185, 102 Am. St. Rep. 118, 66 L.R.A. 258, I Ann ... Cas. 386 ... It is ... well established that ... ...
  • Kenworth of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Seventy-Seven Ltd.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • September 28, 2018
    ...725, until the promise to repair or replace the [product] failed its essential purpose."); Fid. & Cas. Co. of New York v. Jasper Furniture Co. , 186 Ind. 566, 568, 117 N.E. 258, 258 (1917) ("A cause of action accrues, so that limitations begin to run, at the moment its owner has a legal rig......
  • Toth v. Lenk
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • June 30, 1975
    ...to discover a cause of action will not stop the running of the applicable statute of limitations. See: Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Jasper Furniture Co. (1917), 186 Ind. 566, 117 N.E. 258; Craven v. Craven (1913), 181 Ind. 553, 103 N.E. 333. Finally, as our Supreme Court stated in Sherfey v. City......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT