Roth v. Holman

Supreme Court of Kansas

Roth v. Holman

182 P. 416, 105 Kan. 175, 1919 Kan. LEXIS 43

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJuly 5, 1919

DocketNo. 21,863

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 182 P. 416 (Roth v. Holman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roth v. Holman, 182 P. 416, 105 Kan. 175, 1919 Kan. LEXIS 43 (kan 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mason, J.:

Sol Roth and Jesse Langford were sureties on a note for W. J. Holman. On May 30, 1912, they paid it. On November 29, 1916, they brought action against Holman for reimbursement. The sole defense interposed was the statute of limitations. A verdict was directed for the plaintiffs, on which judgment was rendered. The defendant appeals.

The parties disagree as to what statute of limitations is applicable. The defendant asserts that the period is three years, the plaintiffs five. We shall assume that the theory.of the defendant in this regard is correct. He testified that in March, 1912, he left Kansas, and between then and the time the action was begun was absent from the state two years, although maintaining a residence here during the entire period. He was, therefore, by his own statement, personally in the state [176]*176for only two years and nine months after the cause of action had accrued by the payment of the note, and before the action was brought. Consequently, the claim was not outlawed, inasmuch as the statute did not run while he was outside of the state, notwithstanding summons might have been served upon him at any time by the leaving of a copy at his place of residence. (Mary E. Lane, Adm’r, v. The National Bank of the Metropolis, 6 Kan. 74; Gibson v. Simmons, 77 Kan. 461, 94 Pac. 1013.)

The judgment is affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mason, J.:

Sol Roth and Jesse Langford were sureties on a note for W. J. Holman. On May 30, 1912, they paid it. On November 29, 1916, they brought action against Holman for reimbursement. The sole defense interposed was the statute of limitations. A verdict was directed for the plaintiffs, on which judgment was rendered. The defendant appeals.

The parties disagree as to what statute of limitations is applicable. The defendant asserts that the period is three years, the plaintiffs five. We shall assume that the theory.of the defendant in this regard is correct. He testified that in March, 1912, he left Kansas, and between then and the time the action was begun was absent from the state two years, although maintaining a residence here during the entire period. He was, therefore, by his own statement, personally in the state [176]*176for only two years and nine months after the cause of action had accrued by the payment of the note, and before the action was brought. Consequently, the claim was not outlawed, inasmuch as the statute did not run while he was outside of the state, notwithstanding summons might have been served upon him at any time by the leaving of a copy at his place of residence. (Mary E. Lane, Adm’r, v. The National Bank of the Metropolis, 6 Kan. 74; Gibson v. Simmons, 77 Kan. 461, 94 Pac. 1013.)

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 P. 416, 105 Kan. 175, 1919 Kan. LEXIS 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roth-v-holman-kan-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack