Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

9 Kan. 102

Howard v. Ritchie

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided January 15, 1872

Supreme Court of Kansas · decided 1872-01-15

Error from Shawnee District Court. This case involves only a construction of the statute limiting the time for bringing civil actions, ancl for the purposes of the decision, and the grounds therefor, the facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. ■ The question tvas, whether the action arose ex contractu, or ex delicto. The district court held that it arose ex delicto, and was barred. The plaintiff, excepted, and brings the case here by petition in error.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The fact that the breach of the contract resulted in injury to specific personal property would not reduce the time within which an action might be brought below that which a party would have in case of any other breach of contract. That time, if the contract be in writing, is five years, otherwise three * * *””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Jackson v. Central Torpedo Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1872-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 1970

7 state decisions

2018721880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

¶1*103The opinion of the court was delivered by

Brewer, J.:

¶2The petition sets forth a contract for services;; that the services Avere to be rendered Avith care and skill; that they Avere carelessly and negligently performed; that in consequence thereof the personal property of .plaintiff was injured,,- and that the carelessness and negligence Aras .the sole cause of the injury. The transaction is alleged to have-happened more than íavo and less than three years before the commencement of this suit. The district court held that this action camewithin the provisions of the third clause of § IS of the civil code, Avhich limits to two years the bringing of actions “ for-taking, detaining or injuring personal property,” and henceAvas barred. In this we think the learned judge erred. The action is one for breach of contract. The breach of the contract gives the right to relief. The injury to the property determines the amount of damages. The legitimate order of’ OAddence under this petition Avould be, first, the contract, their the breach, and last the amount of damages. The fact that the breach of the contract resulted in injury to specific personal property Avould not reduce the time Avithin Avhich an action might be brought beloAV that Avhich a party Avould have in case of any other breach of contract. That time,, if the contract be in Avriting, is Jive years, otherwise, three. The-plaintiff’s cause of action Avas not barred, and the judgnientof the district court must be reversed.

All the Justices concurring.
/9/kan/102 · .json · Public domain