Laidley v. Smith
Decision Date | 12 March 1889 |
Citation | 32 W.Va. 387 |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | Laidley v. Smith, *(Green, Judge, Absent.) |
On the 16th day of June, 1865, in the chancery cause of Ruffner and Long v. Donnally and others pending in the Circuit Court of Kanawha county, a decree was entered directing the receiver to lend out certain money in his hands to the credit of said suit. In pursuance of said order W., the receiver, loaned, to S. $125.00 and took a promissory note therefor 'payable on demand to W., receiver of the Circuit Court of said county with interest from date, the 5th day of January, 1886, the note showing on its face that it was given for money borrowed from the chancery cause of B. & L. v. D. et als. W. died, and L. was appointed general receiver of said court in his stead June 2, 1877. G. S. L., as special receiver, was directed on the 10th of April, 1884, he having been appointed such special receiver, to collect said fund, and in pursuance of said direction he instituted this suit against S. and filed his declaration in the month of November, 1885. The defendant interposed the plea of the statute of limitations, to which the plaintiff objected and replied generally but tiled no special replication. Held, The claim, upon which said suit was predicated, was barred by the statute of limitations, and if the plaintiff relied upon any of the statutory or other exceptions to take said claim out of the operation of said statute, it should have been set forth in a replication to said plea.
sidered and re-affirmed.
Miller Gallaher for plaintiff in error.
J. M. Laidley and W. Mollohan for defendant in error.
This was an action of debt brought in the Circuit Court of Kanawha county by Charles C. Lewis, receiver of said Circuit Court, the declaration was filed on : iH8
the first Monday in November, 1885. The action was founded on a promissory note bearing date on the 5th day of January, 1866, which note is in the words and figures following:
The note, on which this suit was predicated, bears date on the 5th day of January, 1866, and the declaration seems to have been filed on the first Monday in November, 1885. The writ is not made part of the record, but it is presumed, it bore date more than ninety days before the filing of the declaration. The suit then was instituted nearly twenty years after the note was executed. The plea of the statute of limitations was interposed; and one of the questions, perhaps the most important question, in the case is, whether said plea should have been sustained by the court. Under the statute., which was in force at the time of the execution o said note, every action to recover money, which was founded on any contract in writing signed by the party to be charged thereby or by his agent, but not under seal, should be brought within five years next after the right...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Laidley v. Ex&k
...9 S.E. 209(32 W.Va. 387)Laidleyv.Smith's Ex'k.Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.March 12, 1889.Limitation op Actions—Receivers. 1. On the 16th day of June, 1865, in the chancery cause of Ruffner & Long v. Donally and others, pending in the circuit court of Kanawha county, a decree was entered directing the ... ...