WILSON
v.
KOONTZ
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The plaintiff sued in equity to recover a debt but the defendant pleaded the statute of limitations as a bar to the action. The Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations was a valid defense because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendant's removal from the county actually prevented or obstructed the timely filing of the suit, and because any objection to the form of the plea should have been raised before the issue was joined.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Marshall. Ch. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court to the following effect:
This is'a suit in chancery, and the. Defendant pleads the act of limitations. The Plaintiff by his replication attempts to bring the case within the exception contained in the 14th section of that act5. but it seems essen-" tial, under that section, that the Complainant should have been actually defeated or obstructed ip bringing his action by the removal of the Defendant. ' There is no evidence of his intention of bringing bis action sooner than he did, or that he was delayed by the Defendant’s removal from the county. The Court is therefore of opinion that the circumstance,of removal is not sufficient to take the case out of the statute,
. It is objected, that the plea* of the statute of limitations is not good unless the Defendant answer also and deny the debt, or aver it to be paid. But if this be a valid objection, it ought to have been takeri at the time of offering the plea, and before the issue was joined, I£ is now too late.
If it be a good objection in cases within the general jurisdiction of a Court of equity, yet it is not valid in a case like the present' which is really á case at law as - between the present parties.
The Court is of opinion that the plea is á good-bar, and that the decree should be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Russell v. Todd, 309 U.S. 280 (U.S. 1940)…e legal right is barred by the local statute of limitations. It thus stays its hand in aid of a legal right which, under the Rules of Decision Act, would be unen-forcible in the federal courts of law as well as in the state courts. Wilson v. Koontz, 7 Cranch 202, 205-6; Michoud v. Girod, 4 How. 503, 561; Stearns v. Page, 7 How. 819; Clarke v. Boorman’s Executors, supra, 505; Carrol v. Green, supra; Godfrey v. Terry, 97 U. S. 171, 176, 180; Baker v. Cummings, 169 U. S. 189; Metropolitan Bank v. St. Louis Dis…
-
York v. Guar. Tr. Co. of N.Y., 143 F.2d 503 (2d Cir. 1944)…S.Ct. at page 531, 84 L.Ed. 754, note 1, such-as Alsop v. Riker, 155 U.S. 448, 15 S.Ct. 162, 39 L.Ed. 218; Patterson v. Hewitt, 195 U.S. 309, 318, 25 S.Ct. 35, 49 L.Ed. 214; Kelley v. Boettcher, 8 Cir., 85 F. 55, 62. Wilson v. Koontz, 7 Granch 202, 3 L.Ed. 315; Stearns v. Page, 7 How. 819, 830, 831. 12 L.Ed. 928; Clarke v. Boorman’s Ex’rs, 18 Wall. 493, 505, 507, 21 L.Ed. 901; Carrol v. Green, 92 U.S. 509, 23 L.Ed. 738; Godfrey v. Terry, 97 U.S. 171, 175. 24 L.Ed. 944: Baker v. Cummings, 169 U.S. 189, 206…
-
Amis v. Smith, 16 Pet. 303 (U.S. 1842)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence