Buchner v. Baker

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Buchner v. Baker

164 P. 659, 65 Okla. 130, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 623

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 11, 1916

Docket7397

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 164 P. 659 (Buchner v. Baker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Buchner v. Baker, 164 P. 659, 65 Okla. 130, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 623 (Okla. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

BURFORD, C.

This suit was instituted by F. L. Baker to recover damages from A1 Buchner arising from the breach of the covenants of a warranty deed. The defendant demurred to the original petition. The plaintiff then filed an amended petition. Defendant did not demur to the amended petition, but filed an answer which was a general denial. The record does not show that there was any objection or demurrer made at the trial. The plaintiff introduced his evidence, and the defendant rested without introducing any evidence. The court gave judgment for the plaintiff.

The sole assignment of error is that the court erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff for the reason that the petition shows on its face that the alleged cause of action was barred by the statute of limitation. This defense is not available to the defendant. The statute of limitation is a personal plea, -and, unless raised by demurrer or proper objection where shown on the face of the proceedings, it must be pleaded or the party will be deemed to have 'waived it. Blumle v. Kramer, 14 Okla. 366, 79 Pac. 215; St. L. & F. R. Co. v. Bloom, 39 Okla. 78, 134 Pac. 432.

The authorities cited by plaintiff in error to the effect that the question of the statute of - limitations may be raised by -demurrer, where -sufficient facts to show that the action is barred appear upon the face of the petition, are not applicable here, for the very sufficient reason tint counsel did not demur to the amended petition.

The cause is affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

Opinion by

BURFORD, C.

This suit was instituted by F. L. Baker to recover damages from A1 Buchner arising from the breach of the covenants of a warranty deed. The defendant demurred to the original petition. The plaintiff then filed an amended petition. Defendant did not demur to the amended petition, but filed an answer which was a general denial. The record does not show that there was any objection or demurrer made at the trial. The plaintiff introduced his evidence, and the defendant rested without introducing any evidence. The court gave judgment for the plaintiff.

The sole assignment of error is that the court erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff for the reason that the petition shows on its face that the alleged cause of action was barred by the statute of limitation. This defense is not available to the defendant. The statute of limitation is a personal plea, -and, unless raised by demurrer or proper objection where shown on the face of the proceedings, it must be pleaded or the party will be deemed to have 'waived it. Blumle v. Kramer, 14 Okla. 366, 79 Pac. 215; St. L. & F. R. Co. v. Bloom, 39 Okla. 78, 134 Pac. 432.

The authorities cited by plaintiff in error to the effect that the question of the statute of - limitations may be raised by -demurrer, where -sufficient facts to show that the action is barred appear upon the face of the petition, are not applicable here, for the very sufficient reason tint counsel did not demur to the amended petition.

The cause is affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 P. 659, 65 Okla. 130, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buchner-v-baker-okla-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack