McLeod v. Rogers

Citation154 P. 970,28 Idaho 412
PartiesANNIE MCLEOD, Respondent, v. JOSEPH P. ROGERS, Appellant
Decision Date18 January 1916
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho

CAUSE OF ACTION-STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN BAR-SPECIAL DEMURRER-ANSWER-INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY.

1. Where it clearly appears on the face of the complaint that the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations the statute must be pleaded by special demurrer. Where however, this does not appear on the face of the complaint the plea of the statute must be taken by answer.

2. Where the statute of limitations is sought to be invoked as a defense, if it cannot be urged by special demurrer, and is not pleaded in the answer, it must, for the purpose of the action, be regarded as abandoned, and cannot be taken advantage of on objection to the admissibility of evidence.

[As to the nature and purpose of the statute of limitations, see note in 101 Am.St. 145.]

3. Where the transcript on appeal fails to contain instructions as given by the trial court, it will be presumed that the jury were correctly instructed upon all of the material issues involved as presented by the pleadings, and the judgment of the court will not be disturbed.

APPEAL from the District Court of the First Judicial District, in and for Shoshone County. Hon. William W. Woods, Judge.

Action on account. Judgment for plaintiff. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent.

A. G. Kerns, for Appellant.

The statute of limitations begins to run from the time when the action might properly be commenced. (Pridgeon v. Greathouse, 1 Idaho 359.)

The statute of limitations was pleaded by special demurrer in the manner prescribed by our law. (Sec. 4213, Rev. Codes; Chemung Mining Co. v. Hanley, 9 Idaho 786, 77 P. 226; Frantz v. Idaho Artesian Well & Drilling Co., 5 Idaho 71, 46 P. 1026.)

The fact that defendant answered after his demurrer was overruled does not amount to a waiver of the error committed against him. (Miller v. Hunt, 6 Idaho 523, 57 P. 315; Corcoran v. Sonora Min. etc. Co., 8 Idaho 651, 71 P. 127.)

J. P. Gray and James A. Wayne, for Respondent.

The statute of limitations acts upon the remedy and not upon the debt, and the running of the statute does not extinguish the debt. (Kelly v. Leachman, 3 Idaho 629, 33 P. 44.)

To be available, the statute must be pleaded directly. (Bixby v. Crafts, 6 Cal. Unrep. 12, 53 P. 404.)

It cannot be interposed by argument or inference. (Frantz v. Idaho Artesian Well & Drilling Co., 5 Idaho 71, 76, 46 P. 1026; sec. 4213, Rev. Codes.)

If it clearly appears from the face of the complaint that the cause of action did not accrue within the statutory time, the plea of the statute should be taken by demurrer. But if it does not clearly appear from the face of the complaint that the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations, then the plea of the statute should be taken by answer. (Chemung Mining Co. v. Hanley, 9 Idaho 786, 794, 77 P. 226.)

It cannot be raised by an objection to the testimony, nor by a motion for nonsuit or directed verdict. (Castagnino v. Balletta, 82 Cal. 250, 23 P. 127.)

BUDGE, J. Sullivan, C. J., concurs. Justice Morgan did not sit at the hearing of this case or participate in the decision.

OPINION

BUDGE, J.

On July 18, 1914, plaintiff filed her complaint in the district court of the first judicial district against defendant, alleging that between December 31, 1901, and November 1, 1913, plaintiff, at the special instance and request of defendant, furnished to defendant at plaintiff's residence in the city of Wallace, board and lodging; that such board and lodging so furnished during said period of time was of the reasonable value of $ 6,160, and that there was an implied contract on the part of defendant to pay the same; that defendant had not paid any part of said sum, but that he had rented a dwelling-house to plaintiff from November 1, 1913, to July 31, 1914, at the agreed rental value of $ 25 per month, and that on this account defendant was entitled to offset the sum of $ 225.

To the complaint defendant filed a demurrer which was overruled. Thereafter defendant answered plaintiff's complaint, denying all the material allegations thereof and alleging affirmatively that he had paid plaintiff various sums of money, which payments were in full settlement of the claim sued upon; and as a counterclaim he set up that defendant had rented to plaintiff the dwelling-house mentioned in her complaint, and that she had occupied the same twenty-one months, paying no rent therefor, and was indebted to defendant on account of said rent in the sum of $ 525.

The cause was tried before the court and a jury, resulting in a verdict for the sum of $ 2,170 in favor of plaintiff. Judgment was thereupon entered, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

Appellant assigns eight specifications of error, yet in his brief discusses and relies on but seven. The first error complained of is the action of the trial court in overruling appellant's demurrer. For causes of demurrer appellant alleged, (1) that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; (2) that the cause of action was barred by the provisions of sec. 4053, Rev. Codes (which is the section of the statutes which limits the commencement of actions on contracts, obligations or liabilities, not founded upon instruments of writing to four years); and (3) that the complaint was ambiguous in alleging a conclusive statement that said alleged contract was implied.

In our opinion the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and it is not subject to the objection of ambiguity in alleging that the action is upon an implied contract. For the reason that upon its face this complaint states a cause of action, it is not subject to subdivision 2 of appellant's demurrer, namely, that the cause of action is barred by the provisions of sec. 4053, Rev. Codes.

This court held in the case of Chemung Mining Co. v. Hanley, 9 Idaho 786, 77 P. 226, that if it clearly appears on the face of the complaint that the cause of action did not accrue within the statutory time, the plea of the statute of limitations should be taken by special demurrer. Where, however, it does not appear on the face of the complaint that the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations, then the plea of this statute should be taken by answer.

Notwithstanding the complaint states a cause of action as to all items of indebtedness contracted...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • White v. Conference Claimants Endowment Commission of the Idaho Annual Conference of the Methodist Church
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 27 Febrero 1959
    ... ... McLeod v. Rogers, 28 Idaho 412, 154 P. 970; Last Chance Ditch Co. v. Sawyer, 35 Idaho 61, 204 P. 654; Aker v. Coleman, 60 Idaho 118, 88 P.2d 869 ... ...
  • Rogers v. Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 24 Febrero 1916
    ... ... Williams, 6 Idaho 424, 55 P. 1019; Grattan v ... Wiggins, 23 Cal. 16; People v. Broadway Wharf ... Co., 31 Cal. 33, 34; Kelley v. Kriess, 68 Cal ... 210, 9 P. 129; Morton v. Bartning, 68 Cal. 306, 9 P ... 146; Manning v. Dallas, 73 Cal. 420, 15 P. 34; ... McLeod v. Rogers, 28 Idaho 412, 154 P. 970.) ... It is ... insisted by counsel for appellant that if the cause of ... action, upon which the complaint in this case is founded, ... accrued at the date of the construction of the shear dam and ... the filling of the pile approach to the ... ...
  • Platts v. Pacific First Federal Savings & Loan Association of Tacoma, a Corp.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 27 Marzo 1941
    ... ... statute of limitations, continues until paid. (Sterrett ... v. Sweeney, 15 Idaho 416, 423, 98 P. 418; McLeod v ... Rogers, 28 Idaho 412, 154 P. 970; Anderson v ... Ferguson, 56 Idaho 554, 562, 57 P.2d 325; Bashor v ... Beloit, 20 Idaho 592, 119 P. 55; ... ...
  • Sullivan v. Idaho Wholesale Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 1 Octubre 1926
    ... ... verdict will not be disturbed. (Wright v. Stewart, ... 32 Idaho 490, 185 P. 69; McLeod v. Rogers, 28 Idaho ... 412, 154 P. 970; Gumaer v. White Pine Lumber Co., 11 ... Idaho 591, 83 P. 771; Hopkins v. Utah Northern R ... Co., 2 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT