W. T. Raleigh Co. v. Fortenberry

Mississippi Supreme Court

W. T. Raleigh Co. v. Fortenberry

97 So. 722, 133 Miss. 467, 1923 Miss. LEXIS 144

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 12, 1923

DocketNo. 23624

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 97 So. 722 (W. T. Raleigh Co. v. Fortenberry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

W. T. Raleigh Co. v. Fortenberry, 97 So. 722, 133 Miss. 467, 1923 Miss. LEXIS 144 (Mich. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Cook, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellant, W. T. Raleigh Company, an Illinois corporation, filed its declaration in the circuit court of Neoba county against H. L. Fortenberry for a balance of the purchase price of certain goods, wares, and merchandise theretofore sold and delivered to .the defendant, For-tenberry, in pursuance of a written contract, which was made an exhibit to the declaration, and also against E. S. Richardson, W. D. Germany, and H. D. Bassett,, ap-pellees, as guarantors of the said Fortenberry-under the terms of a written contract of guaranty which was also made an exhibit to the declaration. To this declaration the appellees filed a demurrer setting up, as the sole ground of demurrer, the bar of the statute of limitations. This demurrer was sustained and judgment entered dismissing the cause of action, and from this judgment this appeal was prosecuted.

It is settled by numerous decisions of this court that, in an action at law, the bar of the statute of limitations cannot be availed of by a demurrer to the declaration, even though the cause of action stated may appear to.be barred. The statute of limitations “must be pleaded, so that the plaintiff may, if he can, avoid the bar-by replying facts which prevent it.” Hines v. Potts, 56 Miss. 346; Y. & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Kirk, 102 Miss. 41, 58 So. 710, 834, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1172, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 968; Jordan v. [470]*470Holmes, 102 Miss. 487, 59 So. 809; Y. & M. V. R. R. Co. v. McGee-Dean Co., 115 Miss. 282, 76 So. 264.

It is unnecessary to now decide any of the other questions argued by counsel for appellant, and, for the error in sustaining the demurrer, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded. '

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

Cook, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellant, W. T. Raleigh Company, an Illinois corporation, filed its declaration in the circuit court of Neoba county against H. L. Fortenberry for a balance of the purchase price of certain goods, wares, and merchandise theretofore sold and delivered to .the defendant, For-tenberry, in pursuance of a written contract, which was made an exhibit to the declaration, and also against E. S. Richardson, W. D. Germany, and H. D. Bassett,, ap-pellees, as guarantors of the said Fortenberry-under the terms of a written contract of guaranty which was also made an exhibit to the declaration. To this declaration the appellees filed a demurrer setting up, as the sole ground of demurrer, the bar of the statute of limitations. This demurrer was sustained and judgment entered dismissing the cause of action, and from this judgment this appeal was prosecuted.

It is settled by numerous decisions of this court that, in an action at law, the bar of the statute of limitations cannot be availed of by a demurrer to the declaration, even though the cause of action stated may appear to.be barred. The statute of limitations “must be pleaded, so that the plaintiff may, if he can, avoid the bar-by replying facts which prevent it.” Hines v. Potts, 56 Miss. 346; Y. & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Kirk, 102 Miss. 41, 58 So. 710, 834, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1172, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 968; Jordan v. [470]*470Holmes, 102 Miss. 487, 59 So. 809; Y. & M. V. R. R. Co. v. McGee-Dean Co., 115 Miss. 282, 76 So. 264.

It is unnecessary to now decide any of the other questions argued by counsel for appellant, and, for the error in sustaining the demurrer, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded. '

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 So. 722, 133 Miss. 467, 1923 Miss. LEXIS 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-t-raleigh-co-v-fortenberry-miss-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack