Keith v. Long
| Decision Date | 10 May 1926 |
| Docket Number | 25595 |
| Citation | 108 So. 283,143 Miss. 33 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | KEITH v. LONG et al. [*] |
1. LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS. Three-year statute of limitations is applicable to open account, items of which are barred after three years have elapsed since they were due and payable.
The three-year statute of limitation Is applicable to open accounts, and the items thereof are barred after three years have elapsed since they were due and payable.
2. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. Writing stating that signer thereof had received horse of specified value as part payment on place, giving its location, and that if clear title could not be had, he would give specified amount back, is sufficient to satisfy six-year statute of limitations.
A writing in the following words, signed by the party receiving the horse, is a sufficient writing to satisfy the statute of limitation. The six-year statute of limitation is applicable to such writing.
3. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. Written agreement, signed by person receiving horse, that he had received horse of certain value as part payment on place, giving its location, and that if clear title could not be had he would give specified sum back, was personal promise to repay money received on condition therein named, and it was immaterial that party signing it in fact represented third party.
The writing In the above syllabus is a personal promise of the party signing the same to repay the money received on the condition therein named, and it is immaterial that the party signing It was, in fact, representing a third party.
HON ALLEN Cox, Chancellor.
APPEAL from chancery court of Lee county, HON. ALLEN COX Chancellor.
Action by W. D. Keith against G. W. Long and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and judgment rendered.
Judgment reversed.
Wiley A. Blair, for appellant.
Mitchell & Clayton, for appellees.
Note:--Briefs missing from this record.
The appellant was plaintiff in the court below, and sued the appellee for one hundred fifty dollars paid on a land trade as part of the purchase money thereof, and upon an account amounting to one hundred sixty-nine dollars and thirty-four cents, which was for labor and material used in repairing the house on the land involved in the trade.
The defendant, G. W. Long, when the trade was made, gave the plaintiff, Keith, the following receipt:
"Received of W. D. Keith one horse valued at one hundred fifty dollars as part payment on the old Clayborne place east of Tupelo.
G. W. LONG.
At the same time this writing was executed, four notes for five hundred dollars were executed by W. D. Keith and W. S. Berryhill, payable to H. O. Jones or bearer, the first being due and payable November 15, 1920, and one on each year thereafter. These notes were turned over to the chancery clerk to be kept until an abstract of title was furnished. The notes were placed in an envelope with the full endorsement written thereon at the time of the trade, as follows:
"These notes are not to be delivered to G. W. Long or any one else until deed made and abstract furnished showing good title in H. O. Jones."
The plaintiff, Keith, went into possession on the execution of these notes, and delivered to Long the horse referred to in the receipt. He made repairs on the house on the place bought, indicated by the open account. There was no contract in writing for the sale of the land, and Keith remained on the land until the latter part of the year 1920, when he moved off.
This suit was filed in June, 1924. The defendant filed an answer and two pleas. In the answer he denied that the defendant (Long) did not inform the complainant that he was selling the land for some one else, but asserted that he advised the complainant that he was selling the land for Jones, and that he advised and instructed the complainant to move upon the lands. He denied that it was represented that the abstract would be forthcoming within three weeks, and denied that Long agreed to reimburse the complainant for any improvements or work done on the land in case good title could not be made and denied that complainant did any improvement on the place. The defendant (Long) alleged that he never owned the land in controversy, but that he admitted to selling the land for one H. O. Jones, and then Berryhill agreed to purchase the land, and that Keith paid a horse of the value of one hundred fifty dollars as part of the purchase money on the land, but that the horse was turned over to Jones, and that the complainant had been paid in rent for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gulf & S. I. R. Co. v. Laurel Oil & Fertilizer Co.
...138 Miss. 410, 103 So. 227: Vicksburg Water Works Co. v. Y. & M. V. R. R. Co., 102 Miss. 504, 59 So. 825; Keith v. Long, 143 Miss. 33. 108 So. 283; Milam v. Paxton, 160 Miss. 562, 134 So There are numerous cases applying, the statute of limitations governing written contracts to suits by ra......
-
Gulf & S. I. R. Co. v. Laurel Oil & Fertilizer Co
...v. Fortenberry, 138 Miss. 410, 103 So. 227; Vicksburg Water Works Co. v. Y. & M. V. R. R. Co., 102 Miss. 504, 59 So. 825; Keith v. Long, 143 Miss. 33, 108 So. 283; v. Paxton, 160 Miss. 562, 134 So. 171. There are numerous cases applying the statute of limitations governing written contracts......
-
Hattiesburg Chero Cola Bottling Co. v. Price
... ... promised Price, using the language of witness Price, that he ... would "look after it." ... Witnesses ... Hutchinson and Long, both for the defendant, testified that ... the brakes were not repaired between the time witness Price ... complained that he reported the defect ... ...