Longhofer v. Herbel, 16,324
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
| Writing for the Court | MASON, J.: |
| Citation | 111 P. 483,83 Kan. 278 |
| Parties | GOTTFRIED LONGHOFER, a Minor, etc., Appellee, v. DAVID HERBEL, Appellant |
| Docket Number | 16,324 |
| Decision Date | 05 November 1910 |
111 P. 483
83 Kan. 278
GOTTFRIED LONGHOFER, a Minor, etc., Appellee,
v.
DAVID HERBEL, Appellant
No. 16,324
Supreme Court of Kansas
November 5, 1910
Decided July, 1910.
Appeal from Russell district court.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS--Money Loaned for Indefinite Period--Accrual of Action--Demand. Where a loan is made with the understanding that the borrower is to use the money for some considerable but indefinite time, and until its return is requested, the statute of limitations does not run against an action for its recovery until payment has been demanded.
2. STATUTE OF FRAUDS--Oral Agreement in Consideration of Marriage--Time of Performance--Implied Contract to Pay Child for Services. In an action for the value of services performed by a minor for his stepfather proof of an oral agreement to pay for them may establish a right to recover, by overthrowing the presumption that they were rendered by reason of the relation of the parties, notwithstanding the contract itself may be unenforceable under the statute of frauds because made upon consideration of marriage and not to be performed within a year.
George W. Holland, W. S. Roark, Lee Monroe, and George A. Kline, for the appellant.
L. B. Beardsley, for the appellee.
OPINION
MASON, J.:
Gottfried Longhofer, a minor, sued his stepfather upon three causes of action, the first based upon what was in effect a loan of money, the second upon a contract to pay for his services, and the third [111 P. 484] upon the conversion of personal property. He recovered judgment upon each, and the defendant appeals.
The appellant claims that the first count was barred by the statute of limitations, because action had accrued thereon in favor of trustees who represented the plaintiff immediately upon the making of the loan, inasmuch [83 Kan. 279] as the jury found that it was payable upon demand. The usual rule is that notes or similar obligations payable in terms "on demand" are deemed to be due at once, and that the statute begins to run against them without demand. (25 Cyc. 1100.) Where, however, the understanding of the parties is that one of them is to use the funds of the other for some considerable and indefinite period, and until repayment is requested, the continual retention of the money is permissive and rightful until demand is made, and no right of action accrues until that time.
"If it appears that the money or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weatherhead v. Cooney
...81, 49 S.W. 822, 45 L. R. A. 196; Buckingham v. Ludlum, 37 N.J. Eq. 137; Lapham v. Osborne, 20 Nev. 168, 18 P. 881; Longhofer v. Herbel, 83 Kan. 278, 111 P. 483; Jackson v. Stearns, 58 Ore. 57, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 284, 113 P. 30, 37 L. R. A., N. S., 639; Freitas v. Freitas, 31 Cal.App. 16, 159......
-
Mahas v. Kasiska, 4975
...run at the date of the note, nor until demand in fact was made. (Wood on Limitations, sec. 118, p. 617, and note 10; Longhofer v. Herbel, 83 Kan. 278, 111 P. 483; Cook v. Gore's Estate, 82 Vt. 137, 72 A. 322; Sullivan et al. v. Ellis, 219 F. 694, 135 C. C. A. 366; Horton v. Seymour, 82 Minn......
-
Johnston v. Keefer, 5156
...106 Cal. 9, 21, 39 P. 43; Fallon v. Fallon, 110 Minn. 213, 136 Am. St. 464, 124 N.W. 994, 32 L. R. A., N. S., 486; Longhofer v. Herbel, 83 Kan. 278, 111 P. 483.) In this case there are peculiar circumstances making a reasonable time for plaintiff's demand a longer period than that establish......
-
Dougan v. McGrew, No. 41949
...that he may have been emancipated (See, Lewis v. Missouri, K. & T. Railway Co., 82 Kan. 351, 108 P. 95, and Longhofer v. Herbel, 83 Kan. 278, 111 P. 483), and because he was present in the State of Kansas and could not be served outside the state by the means provided. This is given in answ......
-
Weatherhead v. Cooney
...81, 49 S.W. 822, 45 L. R. A. 196; Buckingham v. Ludlum, 37 N.J. Eq. 137; Lapham v. Osborne, 20 Nev. 168, 18 P. 881; Longhofer v. Herbel, 83 Kan. 278, 111 P. 483; Jackson v. Stearns, 58 Ore. 57, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 284, 113 P. 30, 37 L. R. A., N. S., 639; Freitas v. Freitas, 31 Cal.App. 16, 159......
-
Mahas v. Kasiska, 4975
...run at the date of the note, nor until demand in fact was made. (Wood on Limitations, sec. 118, p. 617, and note 10; Longhofer v. Herbel, 83 Kan. 278, 111 P. 483; Cook v. Gore's Estate, 82 Vt. 137, 72 A. 322; Sullivan et al. v. Ellis, 219 F. 694, 135 C. C. A. 366; Horton v. Seymour, 82 Minn......
-
Johnston v. Keefer, 5156
...106 Cal. 9, 21, 39 P. 43; Fallon v. Fallon, 110 Minn. 213, 136 Am. St. 464, 124 N.W. 994, 32 L. R. A., N. S., 486; Longhofer v. Herbel, 83 Kan. 278, 111 P. 483.) In this case there are peculiar circumstances making a reasonable time for plaintiff's demand a longer period than that establish......
-
Dougan v. McGrew, No. 41949
...that he may have been emancipated (See, Lewis v. Missouri, K. & T. Railway Co., 82 Kan. 351, 108 P. 95, and Longhofer v. Herbel, 83 Kan. 278, 111 P. 483), and because he was present in the State of Kansas and could not be served outside the state by the means provided. This is given in answ......