W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Pritchard

Supreme Court of Arkansas

W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Pritchard

236 S.W. 833, 151 Ark. 390, 1922 Ark. LEXIS 241

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedJanuary 23, 1922

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 236 S.W. 833 (W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Pritchard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Pritchard, 236 S.W. 833, 151 Ark. 390, 1922 Ark. LEXIS 241 (Ark. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

McCulloch, C. J.

Appellant was a foreign corporation engaged in selling goods and merchandise, and on January 5, 1915, entered into a written contract with A. ¡3. Ott for the sale of merchandise to the latter in installments at stipulated prices. Appellees, A. L. Pritchard and W. L. Davis, at the time of the execution of this contract, joined therein for the purpose of becoming guarantors of Ott for the payment of all amounts due under the contract for the sale of merchandise. Ott died on July 29, 1916, owing a balance of $695.32. Appellant presented the claim to Ott’s administrator and instituted the present action in the circuit court of Pulaski County against the administrator and against appellees as guarantors of the account. Appellees pleaded the statute of limitation in bar of appellant’s right to recover against them, and the court sustained the plea, and rendere'd judgment in favor of appellees, but judgment was rendered in favor of appellant against the estate of Ott.

The contract between Ott and appellant, as well as the contract of guaranty executed by appellees, was declared upon in the complaint, but the full amount of Ott’s account for purchases under the contract was exhibited with the complaint.

This is a suit upon a written contract and the case is controlled by the statute of limitation which provides that all actions on written instruments shall be instituted within five years after the cause of action accrues. Crawford & Moses’ Digest, sec. 6955; Sims v. Miller, ante, p. 377. The present action was instituted March 1,1990, and nearly the whole of the balance claimed by appellant, the last items of the account, was sold within five years prior to that date. However, there was a payment on the account within five years, which interrupted the running of the statute. Nunn v. McKnight, 79 Ark. 393. The action was not barred, and the court erred in sustaining the plea of statute of limitation.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

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

McCulloch, C. J.

Appellant was a foreign corporation engaged in selling goods and merchandise, and on January 5, 1915, entered into a written contract with A. ¡3. Ott for the sale of merchandise to the latter in installments at stipulated prices. Appellees, A. L. Pritchard and W. L. Davis, at the time of the execution of this contract, joined therein for the purpose of becoming guarantors of Ott for the payment of all amounts due under the contract for the sale of merchandise. Ott died on July 29, 1916, owing a balance of $695.32. Appellant presented the claim to Ott’s administrator and instituted the present action in the circuit court of Pulaski County against the administrator and against appellees as guarantors of the account. Appellees pleaded the statute of limitation in bar of appellant’s right to recover against them, and the court sustained the plea, and rendere'd judgment in favor of appellees, but judgment was rendered in favor of appellant against the estate of Ott.

The contract between Ott and appellant, as well as the contract of guaranty executed by appellees, was declared upon in the complaint, but the full amount of Ott’s account for purchases under the contract was exhibited with the complaint.

This is a suit upon a written contract and the case is controlled by the statute of limitation which provides that all actions on written instruments shall be instituted within five years after the cause of action accrues. Crawford & Moses’ Digest, sec. 6955; Sims v. Miller, ante, p. 377. The present action was instituted March 1,1990, and nearly the whole of the balance claimed by appellant, the last items of the account, was sold within five years prior to that date. However, there was a payment on the account within five years, which interrupted the running of the statute. Nunn v. McKnight, 79 Ark. 393. The action was not barred, and the court erred in sustaining the plea of statute of limitation.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 S.W. 833, 151 Ark. 390, 1922 Ark. LEXIS 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-t-rawleigh-co-v-pritchard-ark-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack