Inhabitants of Belchertown v. Bridgman

118 Mass. 486, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 410
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedOctober 22, 1875
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 118 Mass. 486 (Inhabitants of Belchertown v. Bridgman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Inhabitants of Belchertown v. Bridgman, 118 Mass. 486, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 410 (Mass. 1875).

Opinion

Wells, J.

We are of opinion that the ruling, asked for by the plaintiff, upon the statute of limitations, was a correct statement of the law in that respect; and that the instruction “ that the statute of limitations was not applicable to this action,” was erroneous.

An “ account stated ” has always been held to bring a merchant’s account, as well as a “ mutual and open account current,” within the operation of the statute of limitations; or rather, to take it out of the exception; so that all claim on account of previous items of the account will be barred in six years thereafter, although the balance itself may be carried forward into a new [488]*488account. Union Bank v. Knapp, 3 Pick. 96. Bass v. Bass, 8 Pick. 187. Chace v. Trafford, 116 Mass. 529. Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. 300. Angell on Limitations, §§ 150, 151, 160. 2 Greenl. Ev. § 445.

The statute of limitations does not apply to the unsettled account of a town treasurer so long as he continues in office; because no action accrues upon the separate credits and charges of his account, or the separate items of receipt and payment. He is himself the legal custodian of the money of the town, receiving and disbursing it as a public officer. The relation is one of trust rather than that of debtor and creditor. Railroad National Bank v. Lowell, 109 Mass. 214. But when his account has been settled with the town, and the balance carried forward to the account of another year, that balance is the sum for which he is accountable as treasurer for the new term. It has been held that his new official bond, in such case, does not cover any claim that the town may have for sums belonging to his previous account, but withheld or omitted in the settlement. Rochester v. Randall, 105 Mass. 295. And it seems that an action for money had and received then accrues for the recovery of such sums. Adams v. Farnsworth, 15 Gray, 423. On the other hand, and for like reasons, after such a settlement, errors and omissions in his previous account, whereby too large a balance has been carried forward, cease to pertain to the treasurer’s current official account; and his claim against the town by reason thereof becomes a personal claim, against which the statute begins to run at the date of such settlement.

Conceding that the defendant is not concluded by the settlements from showing the errors in his previous account, the claim is nevertheless barred by the lapse of six years from the settlement of 1865, which was subsequent to the transactions relied on. Exceptions sustained.

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

Related

Harding v. Covell
104 N.E. 452 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Brown & Manzanares Co. v. Gise
14 N.M. 282 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1907)
Figge v. Bergenthal
109 N.W. 581 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1907)
Porter v. Chicago, Iowa & Dakota Railway Co.
68 N.W. 724 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1896)
Estes v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co.
54 Mo. App. 543 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1893)
Gage v. Dudley
9 A. 786 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1886)
Mason v. Fractional School District No. 1
34 Mich. 228 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1876)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
118 Mass. 486, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inhabitants-of-belchertown-v-bridgman-mass-1875.