Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

27 Miss. 194

Pope v. Bowman

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1854

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1854-04-15

In error from the circuit court of Yazoo county; Hon. Robert C. Perry, judge. The opinion contains the facts of the case. The only question raised by the record in this cause, is, whether the court erred in overruling the demurrer of plaintiff to the fourth answer of the defendant. The defendant in error relies in support of'his answer on the first clause of twelfth section of the act of limitations of 1844, Hutch.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1854-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1918

3 state decisions

101854186018701880189019001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Chief Justice Smith

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The only question in this case is, whether the claim sued for in the circuit court was barred by the provisions of the twelfth section of the statute of 1844, (Hutch. 831).

¶3The facts of the case were as follow: A note was made by J. A. and D. C. Thomas, payable to the order of N. & E. O’Reiley & Co., at the Commercial Bank of Manchester, and indorsed by the payees to P. B. Pope, who indorsed it to the bank. After its maturity suit was brought on the note against all of these parties by the bank. Pending the suit the O’Reileys died, and the suit was abated as to them. Judgment after-wards, on the 5th of June, 1848, was rendered against the makers and Pope, who was the last indorser. Pope was compelled to pay the judgment, and instituted this suit in the Yazoo circuit court to recover from O’Reiley’s administrator the amount thus paid. That suit was commenced on the 15th of June, 1851. The defendant relied, in his answer to plaintiff’s petition, on the statute above referred to. The plaintiff demurred, and his demurrer was overruled; and the plaintiff, having declined to plead further, judgment final was entered against him on the demurrer.

¶4It is very manifest, that until Pope paid the judgment he had no claim whatever against O’Reiley or his estate. Until that was done no right of action had accrued in his behalf. He certainly had none until the judgment was rendered against him. But O’Reiley had died before that was done. Pope’s demand for the money so paid cannot therefore be said to be “ a judgment or other cause of action” against the defendant’s intestate. It was settled by this court, upon mature deliberation, in the case of Bingaman & Staunton v. Robinson, Trustee, &c., (not reported,) that the first clause of the twelfth section of the statute above referred to, applies only to cases in which the cause of action existed against'the testator or intestate. Hence the statute was no bar to the action in this case.

¶5Let the judgment be reversed, and judgment of respondeat ouster be entered in the circuit court.

/27/miss/194 · .json · Public domain