72 W. Va. 618 | W. Va. | 1913
This is a judgment creditors’ suit, and Maria E. Janney, a defendant and judgment creditor, has appealed from a decree overruling her exceptions to the report of a master commissioner, to whom the cause was referred, to make report of the lands owned by the judgment debtor, and the liens thereon.
In the years 1897 and 1898 a number of judgments were recovered against Robert Gold and his several indorsers on notes executed by him to different persons. Those judgments bear different dates. W. O. Nieblas, as administrator of Louisa Martin, deceasel, recovered two judgments against said Gold on the 11th of January, 1898, for $984.86, and $492.73, respectively. Maria E. Janney paid these two judgments and took an assignment of them. In November, 1897, George I. Pitzer, first indorser on a note held by the Citizens National Bank and .joint judgment debtor with said Gold to said bank, having paid the judgment, instituted a suit in chancery against Gold and others, the purpose of which was to subject all his lands, except his estate in remainder in the dower lands of his mother, to the payment of the liens thereon. In that suit all his lands, except his said estate in remainder, were sold, and the proceeds derived therefrom were sufficient to pay only a portion of the liens. The purposes of that suit having been accomplished, it was retired from the docket by decree made on 30th September, 1898.
More than ten years had elapsed between the return days of the last executions issued on all of the judgments against said Gold, and the bringing of the present suit, except the two judg-' ments now held by Maria E. Janney. Executions were issued upon those two judgments on January 4, 1907, and were returned not satisfied on 4th February, 1907, which -was within ten years from the return of the last executions that had been issued thereon.
Notwithstanding executions had not been issued on the prior judgments for a period of more than ten years before the suit was brought, the commissioner reported them as liens superior in dignity to the lien of the judgments held by Maria E. Jan-ney, and she excepted to the report, and the court overruled her exceptions. Appellant’s judgments are subsequent in date, but she contends that the prior judgments have not been kept alive by having executions issued thereon within the time required by section 10, chapter 139, Code 1906, while she was diligent and did keep her-judgments alive. She contends that her judgments are the only existing liens.
Robert Gold was a resident of the State at the time the judgments were recovered, but some time in the year 1899 he left the State and has ever since continued to be a non-resident. He was proceeded against, in this suit, by order of publication, but before final decree he filed his answer, admitting that the judgments reported in favor of appellees had not been paid.
Relying upon Wellon v. Boggs, 45 W. Va. 620, counsel for appellees insist that the statute of limitations is purely a personal defense to the debtor, and that, so long as he is living, one judgment creditor can not rely upon it to defeat the lien of another judgment creditor. But counsel for appellant attack the soundness of that decision, and have presented very strong argument in their brief to show that it is inequitable and against the weight of authorities upon that question,- and
This brings us to a consideration of the next question raised in the case, which is, whether the debtor’s absence from the State has prevented the running of the statute of limitations, and has saved the liens of the judgment. Sections 10 and 11, chapter 139, Code 1906', prescribe limitations upon the time of issuance of an execution on a judgment, and also upon an action, suit or scire facias brought on a judgment within a period of ten years, from its date; or, if execution issued within two years from the date of the judgment, then in ten ydars from the return day of the last execution which has not been returned, or which has been returned unsatisfied. Section 11 says no execution shall issue, and no action, suit or scire facias shall be brought on any judgment after the time prescribed in section 10, but it contains the following provision in regard to computing the time, viz.: “the period mentioned in the fourth section of chapter one hundred and thirty-six of this Code, and any time during which the right to sue out execution on the judgment is suspended by the terms thereof, or by legal process, shall be omitted from the computation; and the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth sections of chapter one hundred and four of this Code shall apply to the right to bring such action, suit or scire facias, in like manner as to any right, action, suit or scire facias, mentioned in those sections.”
The terms of the judgments in question place no limitation upon the right to sue out execution, and we have already said more than ten years had elapsed between the issuance of execution on all of the judgments, except upon the two now owned by appellant, and the bringing of this suit. But the judgment debtor left the State in 1899 and has ever since resided elsewhere, and, therefore, counsel for appellees insist that the
There is a very able and ingenious argument by counsel for appellant, in their brief, to demonstrate that the time of the debtor’s absence from the State should not be omitted from the computation of time, unless his absence actually prevented the bringing of the suit. Otherwise, they say. the creditor has not been obstructed, and the statute was intended to apply only when there has been an actual obstruction of the right. But the language of the statute is too plain, it seems to us, to admit of doubt, that the Legislature regarded absence from the State, in and of itself, such an obstruction of the creditor’s right as to justify a suspension of the statute of limitation on that account, and did so suspend it. Whether, in all cases, absence from the State does operate as an 'obstruction, or not, we think the Legislature, by the clearest intendment, so regarded it. It is put on the same footing with a party’s absconding, or concealing himself; and then follow these words, “or by any other indirect ways or means, obstruct the prosecution of such right.” The words quoted clearly indicate that-a debtor’s departing from the state suspends the running of the statute. It is true that the debtor’s absence did not prevent the bringing of this suit; he was proceeded against by order of publication, and that could have been done at any time after he became a non-resident-
The lien of a judgment remains so long as the right to bring an action on it or or revive it by scire facias exists. If the debt- or had returned to the state, at the time this suit was brought, we do not think the right of his creditors to bring an action or scire facias on their respective judgments, and to exclude from the period of limitation the time of his absence, can be doubted. Having such right, their liens are preserved, and may be enforced in-this suit.,, It was not necessary to revive the judgments by actions or scire facias before bringing the suit. The liens of the judgments never ceased. Sections 10 and 11, chapter 139, authorize the bringing of a suit to enforce a judgment lien whenever, and as long as, the creditor has the right to. bring an action or a scire facias. The statute treats them as alternative remedies; and, if any one of them is saved to the creditor, all are saved. The term suit as used in sections 10- and 11, clearly means a suit in equity for the enforcement of a judgment lien.
Finding no error we affirm the decree.
Affirmed.