Mathews v. AppleberryMathews v. Appleberry
— This suit wаs instituted on the tenth day of March, 1888. The plaintiff’s petition is founded on an account for goods sold, аnd money furnished by the plaintiff at defеndant’s request to one Celina Rose from 1870 to 1874. The petition states that on the-day of--, 1875, the plaintiff demanded payment, which was refusеd, and that since the accrual of said account the defеndant has resided continuously outsidе of this state. The answer is a general denial, plea of the stаtute of frauds, and plea of the statute of limitations of five yeаrs. There was no reply.
Hpon thе trial of the cause the plaintiff gave evidence tending to shоw that the goods and money werе furnished at the defendant’s request, and that the defendant had been a nonresident of the state ever
There is no conceivable theory on which this judgment cаn be supported. The plaintiff’s petition states a cause of action admittedly barred by the stаtute .of limitations. The statute is plеaded. There is no reply avoiding the statute, and the plaintiff’s own evidence puts it beyond controversy that the cause of aсtion is barred by the statute. The plаintiff .and the court seem to have been of opinion that, if the defendant is a nonresident when the сause of action acсrues and continues to be such, thе statute does not run in his favor. This is a misсonception of the statute. Section 3236 of the Bevised Statutеs of 1879 (6781, 1889) has reference only tо persons who were residents of the state when the cause of action accrued. Thomas v. Black,
the judgment is reversed.