Renner v. Progressive Life Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 11 October 1937 |
Docket Number | No. 4-4735.,4-4735. |
Citation | 109 S.W.2d 1245 |
Parties | RENNER v. PROGRESSIVE LIFE INS. Co. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Benton County; John S. Combs, Judge.
Action by Charles F. Renner against the Progressive Life Insurance Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
John W. Nance, of McAllen, Tex., for appellant.
E. M. Arnold, of Little Rock, and Duty & Duty, of Rogers, for appellee.
This is the third appeal in this case. The last appeal was Renner v. Progressive Life Insurance Company, 101 S.W.(2d) 426, decided by this court on January 25, 1937, and the first appeal is Renner v. Progressive Life Insurance Company, 191 Ark. 836, 88 S.W.(2d) 57. A history of the case and the facts are stated in these two opinions, and it would serve no useful purpose to restate them in this opinion.
In this case, in the Benton circuit court, a demurrer was sustained, and judgment entered against appellant, from which comes this appeal.
It is contended by the appellees that the complaint shows upon its face that the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations. Appellant contends that section 1189, Crawford & Moses' Dig., sets out the grounds of demurrer, and prescribes the limits of the grounds of demurrer. That section reads as follows:
It is conceded by appellant that this court has held in numerous cases that, if the complaint shows upon its face that the cause of action is barred by limitation, that question may be raised by demurrer; but he contends that the Legislature has power to prescribe and limit the grounds of demurrer, and that it has done so in the section above quoted.
This court has frequently said that, where the complaint shows on its face that it is barred by the statute of limitations, and no ground of avoidance is shown, this question may be raised by demurrer. In the case of Smith v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 175 Ark. 626, 1 S.W. (2d) 48, 49, we said: "This court has frequently held, and we now hold again that, where the complaint shows on its face that it is barred by the statute of limitations, and no ground of avoidance is shown, the question may be raised by demurrer." Rogers v. Ogburn, 116 Ark. 233, 172 S.W. 867; Earnest v. St. Louis, M. & S. E. Ry. Co., 87 Ark. 65, 112 S.W. 141; Flanagan v. Ray, 149 Ark. 411, 232 S.W. 600; Anthony v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 108 Ark. 219, 157 S.W. 394; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Sweet, 63 Ark. 563, 40 S.W. 463; Miles v. Scales, 174 Ark. 412, 295 S.W. 375; Smith v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 175 Ark. 626, 1 S.W.(2d) 48; Western Clay Drainage Dist. v. Wynn, 179 Ark. 988, 18 S.W.(2d) 1035.
There are many other decisions of this court to the same effect. The rule is therefore well established that, if the complaint shows on its face that the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations, a demurrer will be sustained.
It is the contention, however, of the appellant that the amendment to his complaint related back to the time of filing the original complaint.
We said in the case of Love v. Couch, 181 Ark. 994, 28 S.W.(2d) 1067, 1071, in deciding the question now before us: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial