Merritt v. Economy Department Store, 18653
Decision Date | 14 July 1955 |
Docket Number | No. 18653,18653 |
Citation | 125 Ind.App. 560,128 N.E.2d 279 |
Parties | , 61 A.L.R.2d 296 Willie MERRITT, Appellant, v. ECONOMY DEPARTMENT STORE, Inc., Appellee. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
James D. Lopp, John D. Clouse, Evansville, for appellant.
Warren, Merrill & Combs, Evansville, for appellee.
This is an action brought by appellant to recover damages sustained by him on account of injuries suffered by his wife alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the appellee.
The appellee filed a demurrer to appellant's complaint on the ground that the complaint disclosed that the action was not commenced within two years after it accrued and that it was, therefore, barred by the statute of limitations.
The trial court sustained the demurrer and the appellant refused to plead further and suffered judgment to go against him.
The ruling on the demurrer constitutes the only assignment of error.
Appellee contends the applicable statute of limitations is Section 2-602 Burns' Indiana Stat., 1953 Supp., which provides in part,
Both appellant and appellee agree and it is unquestionably the law of this state that the right of action for loss of service is a property right.
An action for loss of service is for a property right and should be classed as an action "for injuries to property", rather than one "for injuries to person". Graf v. City Transit Co., Inc., 1942, 220 Ind. 249, 41 N.E.2d 941, 942.
Appellee contends that such right of action is 'personal property' as that term is used in the two-year statute of limitations. We believe this to be a correct interpretation of the law for the reason that in the court's opinion, Graf v. City Transit Co., Inc., supra, it was stated: 'Our legislature might have made all of these actions subject to the same limitation but it has not seen fit to do so.'
Ch. 301, § 1, p. 999, Acts of 1951, did make 'all of these actions subject to the same limitation', and in doing so amended the statute of limitations so that the six-year statute which had read, in part, 'for injuries to property', was amended to read, in part, 'for injuries to property other than personal property * * *.' Section 2-601 Burns' Indiana Stat., 1953 Supp., and the two-year statute reading, in part, 'for injuries to person or character * * *' was amended to read, in part, 1953 Supp., establishes a limitation of two years 'for injuries to person'.
We must determine when the statute commences to run. In 54 C.J.S., Limitations of Actions, § 108, p. 9, it is stated:
To the same effect, 34 Am.Jur., p. 23, Sec. 13.
In a negligence action our Supreme Court, in Board of Commissioners of Wabash County v. Pearson, 1889, 120 Ind. 426, at page 428, 22 N.E. 134, 135, speaking through Judge Elliott, said:
See also: City of Ft. Wayne v. Hamilton, 1892, 132 Ind. 487, 495, 32 N.E. 324; 37 C.J. 813, Sec. 158; 54 C.J.S., Limitations of Actions,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shideler v. Dwyer
...action for loss of services is for injuries to property rather than as one for injuries to person. Merritt v. Economy Department Store, Inc., (1955) 125 Ind.App. 560, 564, 128 N.E.2d 279, 281, reached the same result, holding that a husband's action for loss of services caused by injuries t......
-
Movement for Opportunity and Equality v. General Motors Corp.
...v. Cain, 145 Ind.App. 581, 19 Ind.Dec. 168, 251 N.E.2d 852 (1969), and loss of a spouse's services, Merritt v. Economy Department Store, 125 Ind.App. 560, 128 N.E.2d 279 (1955). By contrast, Indiana has limited its contract section, Ind.Code Ann. § 34-1-2-1 (Burns 1973) to actions based on ......
-
Maynard by Maynard v. Indiana Harbor Belt R. Co., 2:96-CV-536-RL.
...statute of limitations period. State of Indiana v. Guziar, 680 N.E.2d 553, 555 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (citing Merritt v. Economy Dept. Store, 125 Ind.App. 560, 128 N.E.2d 279, 280 (1955)). Under Indiana law, a cause of action accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run on a personal inj......
-
Toth v. Lenk
...the act or omission which gave rise to them. See, Montgomery v. Crum (1928), 199 Ind. 660, 161 N.E. 251; Merritt v. Economy Dept. Stores (1955), 125 Ind.App. 560, 128 N.E.2d 279. There can be no doubt that the legislature did not intend actual discovery to be the event that triggers the com......