Johnson v. Crisler

• Decision Date: 20 January 1930
• Docket Number: 28329
• Citation: 156 Miss. 266,125 So. 724
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: JOHNSON v. CRISLER

125 So. 724

156 Miss. 266

JOHNSON v. CRISLER

No. 28329

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 20, 1930

Division B

1. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. Cause of action by reason of false certificate to abstract accrued, as respected limitations, at time abstract was certified to and delivered (Hemingway's Code 1927, section 2637).

Cause of action by reason of false certificate to abstract of title accrued, as respected limitations, under Code 1906, section 3099 (Hemingway's Code 1927, section 2637), at the time the abstract was certified to and delivered, rather than from the date damage occurred.

2. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. Cause of action for breach of contract generally accrues at time of breach, regardless of when damages occurred.

In the case of a breach of contract, the cause of action accrues generally at the time of the breach, regardless of the time when damages from breach occurred.

HON WM. A. ALCORN, Jr., Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Coahoma county, First district HON. WM A. ALCORN, JR., Judge.

Action by W. W. Johnson against J. D. Crisler. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cutrer & Smith and Roberson & Cook, all of Clarksdale, for appellant.

The three-year statute of limitations does not apply, because the liability arose only from and after the date it was necessary for the plaintiff to pay the same.

Maynard, Fitz Gerald & Venable, of Clarksdale, for appellee.

The cause of action against abstractor for damages resulting from an incorrect abstract, arises at the time that the examination of title is made and reported to client--that is, from the date when the breach of skill or care occurs, and not from when the actual damage is suffered.

Lattin v. Gillett, 95 Cal. 317, 29 A. S. R. 115; Russell v. Polk County Abstract Co., 87 Iowa 233, 43 A. S. R. 381; Note Ann. Cas. 1916D, 827-8; Corpus Juris, Title Abstracts of Title, sec. 15.

OPINION

Anderson, J.

Appellant brought this action in the county court of Coahoma county against appellee to recover damages alleged to have been suffered because appellee, an attorney at law and abstractor of titles to land, employed by appellant to examine and certify to an abstract of title to a certain piece of land which appellant contemplated buying, and later bought, made a false certificate to such abstract of title. There was a trial in the county court resulting in appellee's favor; from that judgment, appellant appealed to the circuit court of Coahoma County, and there the judgment of the county court was affirmed. From the judgment of the circuit court, this appeal is prosecuted.

One of appellee's defenses was that the cause of action was barred by the three-year statute of limitations (section 3099 of the Code of 1906, section 2637 of Hemingway's Code of 1927).

The following is deemed a sufficient statement of the case to develop the question decided: About January 1, 1925 appellant entered into a written contract with L. T. Darden for the purchase from the latter of four lots in the city of Clarksdale for the price of five thousand dollars, provided the title was good and free from liens. Appellant employed appellee to examine and certify the title to the property, and especially the condition of the title as to the existence of any liens or incumbrances outstanding against it. Appellee made an examination, and on February 2, 1925, attached his certificate to the abstract of title, which showed...