Slover v. Union Bank

Decision Date28 September 1905
PartiesSLOVER v. UNION BANK.
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

Suit by H. C. Slover against the Union Bank. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

D. K. Young and C. J. Sawyer, for appellant. J. H. Wallace and Cornick, Wright & Frantz, for appellee.

WILKES, J.

This cause is before us upon a decree of the chancellor overruling a demurrer and granting an appeal to the defendant.

The bill was filed to collect usury upon a series of transactions on the 20th of March, 1905. It charges that the last usurious interest was paid on the 1st of March, 1901, and that there was a final settlement between the parties on the 4th of March, 1902, of all the transactions between them involving the usury.

There was a demurrer filed, relying upon the statute of two years and the statute of six years; and it is insisted in this court that the demurrer should have been sustained on the ground that the action was barred by the statute of two years.

There being a series of usurious transactions, the statute of limitations would not begin to run until these transactions were closed; and a settlement was made between the parties on the 4th of March, 1902. On the 15th of April, 1903, the Legislature of Tennessee passed an act in the following words, to wit:

"No action shall be brought on any claim for usury after two years from the date of the payment of the debt upon which such claim for usury shall be based: provided this act shall not affect any litigation now pending." Shannon's Code Supp. p. 692.

It is insisted that under this statute all rights of action for usury paid, which had accrued more than two years before the passage of the act and upon which no suit had been brought at the time the act was passed, were barred, and that the expression of reservation used in the statute, "Provided this act shall not affect any litigation now pending," was intended to preserve all rights of action upon which suit had been brought before the act was passed, but none other, and that all other rights of action which had accrued more than two years before April 15, 1903, should be cut off at once and extinguished. In other words, if the right of action had accrued under the previously existing laws on the 15th day of April, 1901, it should be at once summarily cut off and extinguished; and in this connection it is said that the statute of limitations is not a vested right, but is a remedy, and that the Legislature has the right to change and limit such remedy as it might see proper.

It is said by Mr. Bishop, in his work on Written Laws, p. 73:

"The Legislature can, at its pleasure, change a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Pacific Eastern Corp. v. Gulf Life Holding Co.
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • 31 Marzo 1995
    ...Const. art. I, § 20. Jones v. Coal Creek Mining & Mfg. Co., 133 Tenn. 159, 173-74, 180 S.W. 179, 183 (1915); Slover v. Union Bank, 115 Tenn. at 350, 89 S.W. at 399 (1905). To be consistent with Tenn. Const. art. I, § 20, an amended statute of limitations cannot revive causes of action that ......
  • Hargraves v. Brackett Stripping Machine Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • 11 Septiembre 1970
    ...62; Sohn v. Waterson, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 596, 21 L.Ed. 737; Coleman v. Superior Court, 135 Cal.App. 74, 26 P.2d 673; Slover v. Union Bank, 115 Tenn. 347, 89 S.W. 399), and upon a line of authority holding limitations statutes invalid where the limitation period is unreasonably short (see Ed......
  • Morris v. Gross
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • 27 Octubre 1978
    ...with vested rights of action after suit has been commenced." 51 Am.Jur.2d Limitation of Actions § 28 (1970) citing Slover v. Union Bank, 115 Tenn. 347, 89 S.W. 399 (1905); Shaurette v. Capitol Erecting Co., 23 Wis.2d 538, 128 N.W.2d 34 See also Bates v. Shapard, 224 Tenn. 672, 461 S.W.2d 94......
  • Easterling v. Murphey
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 25 Octubre 1928
    ...Mellinger v. City of Houston, 68 Tex. 57, 3 S. W. 249; McCutcheon v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.) 194 S. W. 831; Slover v. Union Bank, 115 Tenn. 347, 89 S. W. 399, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 528. Appellees' motion is ...
  • 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