Madison County v. Collier

• Decision Date: 21 October 1901
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: MADISON COUNTY v. SAMUEL R. COLLIER. [*]

30 So. 610

87 Miss. 204

MADISON COUNTY v. SAMUEL R. COLLIER. ^[*]

Supreme Court of Mississippi

October 21, 1901

From the circuit court of Madison county. HON. ROBERT POWELL Judge.

Collier appellee, was plaintiff in the court below; Madison county appellant, was defendant there. Appeal and cross-appeal. The opinion fully states the case.

Reversed and remanded.

A. P. Hill, for appellant and cross-appellee.

The act of 1890, ch. 250, was repealed by the adoption of the code of 1892; certainly the eighth section of the act, providing for the compensation of the members of the board of supervisors, was repealed by secs. 2018, 2019 of said code, which prescribe the entire compensation, or fees, to be paid supervisors.

Chrisman & Howell, for appellee and cross-appellant.

The act of 1884, ch. 320, was not repealed by the adoption of the code of 1892. Madison County v. Stewart, 74 Miss. 160 (s.c., 20 South. Rep., 857). It follows, of course, that the act of 1890, ch. 320, including the eighth section, was not repealed thereby. Appellee's claim did not rest in open account, and no part of it was barred; he should have recovered upon his entire demand. The definitions of an open account are sufficient to maintain this point. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, and authorities there cited.

OPINION

TERRALL, J.

S. R. Collier was a member of the board of supervisors of Madison county for the years 1896, 1897, 1898, and 1899, inclusive, and performed all the duties of that office. In February, 1901, Collier filed his claim for $ 150 salary for each of said years, under Laws 1890, ch. 250, sec. 8, entitled "An act to insure the better working of the public roads in the county of Madison and for other purposes." The board of supervisors admitted upon the record that Collier had served as a member of the board for the years specified, under a regular election to said office, and had received no pay under the act of 1890, but disallowed said claim. An appeal bond was given by Collier, and the circuit court gave judgment for Collier for $ 300, holding that the three-years' statute of limitation had barred Collier for his salary for the years 1896 and 1897. The county appeals and Collier takes a cross-appeal. The contention of the county is based upon the idea that Laws 1890, ch. 250, is repealed by the code of 1892. Laws 1890, ch. 250, seems to be an amendment to Laws 1884, ch. 320, for working the public roads in Madison county by contract; and as it was held in Madison Co. v. Stewart, 74 Miss. 160 (20 So. 857), that the latter act was not repealed by the code of 1892, it seems to us that it must follow that Laws 1890, ch. 250, is not repealed by that code.

An examination of Code 1892, ch. 83, on limitations of actions will disclose the information that the claim here sued for is governed by the limitation of either three or six years. Section 2737 makes six years the limitation of all actions for which no other period is prescribed, and sec. 2739 reads thus: "Actions on open account or stated account, not acknowledged in writing signed by the debtor, and on any unwritten contract, express or implied, shall be commenced within three years next after the cause of such action accrued, and not after." If the claim of appellee, or any part of it, be barred of recovery, it is because it is covered by this latter section. It is perfectly clear that the demand here made does not come within the last clause of the section--that is, of the clause relating to...