Boyd v. Boyd

27 Ind. 429
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1867
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 27 Ind. 429 (Boyd v. Boyd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Boyd v. Boyd, 27 Ind. 429 (Ind. 1867).

Opinion

Frazer, J.

This was an action to recover damages for fraud in an exchange of lands. The answer set up the statute of limitations. The reply alleged that the defendant had concealed his liability to the action by certain false pretenses made by himself, and certain misrepresentations which he induced others to make, as to subsequent transactions, the actual truth of which would otherwise have been known to the plaintiff, and would have put him on inquiry, whereby he would have discovered the fraud; that thus deceived, he remained ignorant of the facts, &c.

The only question is, whether the reply was good, in view of section 219 of the code, which provides that if a person liable to an action shall conceal the fact from the person entitled to sue, the action may be brought at any time within the period of limitation, after the discovery. ~We [430]*430agree with, the counsel for the appellee, that the concealment contemplated by the statute must be something more than mere silence; that it must be an arrangement or contrivance to prevent subsequent discovery, and must be of an affirmative character. But it does not occur to us that it needs to be concocted after the accruing of the cause of action, provided it operates afterwards as a means of concealment, and was so intended. In other language, the defendant must not, at any time, do anything to prevent the plaintiff from ascertaining, subsequently to the transaction out of which the right of action arises, the facts upon which that right depends, either by affirmatively hiding the truth, enhancing the natural difficulty of discovering it, or by any device avoiding inquiry which would .result in discovery; and if he do thereby escape suit for a time, the statute of limitations will not run during, that time. Jones v. The State, 14 Ind. 120.

G. Holland and N. H. Johnson, for appellant. W. A. Peele, J. B. Julian and J. F. Julian, for appellee.

The judgment is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded, with directions to overrule the demurrer to the reply to the second paragraph of the answer.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Aegis Insurance Co. v. Delta Fire & Casualty Co.
99 So. 2d 767 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1958)
Guy v. SCHULDT
138 N.E.2d 891 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1956)
Eblen v. Eblen
234 P.2d 434 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1951)
Van Spanje v. Hostettler
119 N.E. 725 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1918)
Hall v. Pennsylvania Railroad
100 A. 1035 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1916)
Caldwell v. Ulsh
112 N.E. 518 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1916)
Hyman v. Hibernia Bank & Trust Co.
71 So. 598 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1916)
Miller v. Ash
105 P. 600 (California Supreme Court, 1909)
Jackson v. Jackson
47 N.E. 963 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1897)
Day v. Dages
46 N.E. 589 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1897)
Dorsey Machine Co. v. McCaffrey
38 N.E. 208 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1894)
Board of Commissioners v. Lods
36 N.E. 772 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1894)
Fisher v. Tuller
23 N.E. 523 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1890)
Miller v. Powers
4 L.R.A. 483 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1889)
McAlpine v. Hedges
21 F. 689 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana, 1884)
Bartalott v. International Bank
14 Ill. App. 158 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1884)
Wood v. Carpenter
101 U.S. 135 (Supreme Court, 1879)
Jackson v. Buchanan
59 Ind. 390 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1877)
Wynne v. Cornelison
52 Ind. 312 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1876)
Jeffersonville, Madison, & Indianapolis R. R. v. Hendricks
41 Ind. 48 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1872)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 Ind. 429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-v-boyd-ind-1867.