Dinsmore v. Warfield

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Dinsmore v. Warfield

295 S.W.2d 566

DecidedNovember 9, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 295 S.W.2d 566 (Dinsmore v. Warfield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dinsmore v. Warfield, 295 S.W.2d 566 (Ky. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion for an appeal from a •judgment awarding appellee, Grover C. Warfield, judgment for, $240.34, with ac- ■ crued interest from March 13, 1939, and ordering certain real estate given as security for the payment of the note sold to satisfy the indebtedness.

Appellant, J. S. Dinsmore, relied upon •KRS 413.090(2), the 15-year statute of -limitations, as a bar to recovery on the note. The other appellants did not sign the note but executed a mortgage on their property as security for its payment. They allege they signed the mortgage as sureties only and claim they are therefore discharged from all liability because suit was ■not brought within the time prescribed by KRS 413.220(3), the 7-year statute of limitations.

The note is dated March 13, 1939, and it matured March 12, 1940. Since the ■action was instituted June 16, 1954, it was begun within the 15-year period, because no action accrued on the note until the date of maturity. See Gould v. Bank of Independence, 264 Ky. 511, 94 S.W.2d 991. The appellants who did not sign the note 'but only mortgaged their property to secure the debt were not sureties within the meaning of the 7-year statute, since the 15-year statute of limitations applies to an -action to enforce the lien under discussion. See Johnson v. Nelson, etc., 15 Ky.Law Rep. 495, and Craddock v. Lee, etc., 61 S.W. 22, 22 Ky.Law Rep. 1651.

Wherefore, the motion for an appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion for an appeal from a •judgment awarding appellee, Grover C. Warfield, judgment for, $240.34, with ac- ■ crued interest from March 13, 1939, and ordering certain real estate given as security for the payment of the note sold to satisfy the indebtedness.

Appellant, J. S. Dinsmore, relied upon •KRS 413.090(2), the 15-year statute of -limitations, as a bar to recovery on the note. The other appellants did not sign the note but executed a mortgage on their property as security for its payment. They allege they signed the mortgage as sureties only and claim they are therefore discharged from all liability because suit was ■not brought within the time prescribed by KRS 413.220(3), the 7-year statute of limitations.

The note is dated March 13, 1939, and it matured March 12, 1940. Since the ■action was instituted June 16, 1954, it was begun within the 15-year period, because no action accrued on the note until the date of maturity. See Gould v. Bank of Independence, 264 Ky. 511, 94 S.W.2d 991. The appellants who did not sign the note 'but only mortgaged their property to secure the debt were not sureties within the meaning of the 7-year statute, since the 15-year statute of limitations applies to an -action to enforce the lien under discussion. See Johnson v. Nelson, etc., 15 Ky.Law Rep. 495, and Craddock v. Lee, etc., 61 S.W. 22, 22 Ky.Law Rep. 1651.

Wherefore, the motion for an appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 S.W.2d 566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dinsmore-v-warfield-kyctapp-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack