*1 to the appropriating and spending departments. remedy, and when one is needed and is not forthcoming legislative prescription and executive must dispensary, prescribed and ad- ministered people themselves.
Order affirmed.
M. O. PATTRIDGE v. A. PALMER.1 C.
December 31,153. No. F.G. Hants, appellant.
Hansen & Engan, respondent. Justice. Stone,
Plaintiff appeals judgment, from a him adverse to insofar as it him recovery denies two-thirds his claim. $2,000
Plaintiff sued on a dated note December 1, 1924, executed Angeles, California, payable Los to the estate Otis L. year one after date Pattridge, Tracy, Minnesota. When the note L. given, was estate Otis Pattridge was in probate Lyon county, Tracy court of is located. Plaintiff, son, mother, widow, and his were the heirs of Otis L. Pattridge, de- 1 Reported in 277 N. 18.W. the date of Minnesota They
ceased. were citizens and residents in this Plaintiff since has continued resident of the note. ever same During mother until her death. state. His so continued the. California. October defendant has been a resident of period a one-third assigned matured, probate before the *2 who mother, to in and two-thirds his plaintiff interest the note to August 8, probated, died 1929. Her estate ivas December in interest her two-thirds probate assigned owner. thereby who became its sole plaintiff, in on the note arose that Defendant claims ac- plaintiff interest which and that as to the two-thirds California limi- by the statute of from his mother his action is barred quired Procedure, 337) Civil (California Code of tations California Mason Minn. St. maintained because of and cannot be provides: state, and, by arisen outside of this “When a cause of has arose, it an action thereon is there the laws of the in this no such action shall be maintained by lapse time, who has owned the plaintiff unless the be citizen state state ever since accrued.” provides The cited California statute that an action In the ivriting years. in must be commenced within four obligation agreed it is the cause action herd involved stipulated facts California, accrued in the same arose accrued on arose and law of California limi- the statute of December run that state commenced to on date. tations did not in contends that the cause of action Cali- Plaintiff does not come within Minnesota, in and therefore fornia but Minn. St. 9201. The court below of Mason provisions for one-third plaintiff in favor of of the face of the judgment gave interest, costs, disbursements, amounting with note, together from the appeals judgment. Plaintiff in all $868.10. under the rule below is correct of Luce Clarke, The decision (See also Powers 361, 51 N. W. Merc. Co. 49 Minn. N. W. 1056: Drake v. Bigelow, 93 Minn. Blethen, our 664.) That resulted from a construction limita- (§ 9201) intending recognize statute “to the effect has come tion a cause of action any laws of other state whenever laws, under the of such and been barred them.” in of that conclusion is this reasoning support 360]: [49 “All refer- periods, statutes of have limitation, prescribing oppor- ence for the of such to the time when the beginning periods was a tunity to commence the action arises. And so there never have purpose which, statute of limitations for the the case we of action would supposed, be deemed have arisen fell payable, the debt due the state where the debt was made there neither creditor to nor debtor being then state sue nor sued; purpose to be for the of which it would be then deemed residence, have arisen the state the creditor’s no debtor there to be sued.”
If question now to by logic were be decided and the alone inquiry confined to an abstract consideration of the nature and action, contrary essentials a cause of result might well be *3 reached. But for years statute, now over 50 9201, as con- strued Luce Clarke has been our and we law, prefer not to change it.
Putting aside pure theory realism, the interest there much said for the reasoning of Mr. Justice G-ilfillanin Luce Clarke. While no cause of action arises until the or default of obligor, it is not true that when default occurs the result in respect remedy confined in territorial jurisdiction may where it occurs. The result there remain in the realm of for theory, opportunity may no ever come of the enforcement there cause of action suit thereon.
In this case defendant’s default occurred December Minnesota, and the cause of action accrued or But originated here. (even not though did it also it did not originate) simultane- Certainly so, in California? defendant could ously successfully in instantly and that state. So a sued “arisen” in defendant had California for against purpose of defendant’s If, then, limitation of action. that cause necessary period, during there residence continuous say not prepared are California, barred action is we 9201 the that under decisions, earlier reasoning of our all. bad after is so here, is also is, concerning problems numerous It is one of those which side On judicial opinion. a division long been, has (See notes, L.R.A.[N.S.] do determine. lies we weight ago long as so L. But inasmuch 691.) 17 R. C. 14 Id., fence, one side of on position did take had to and this court other over to the side. jump noAvto decline simply we of limita- that the statute Avhichoccurs to us is thought Another intended substantially its repose. We lessen tions is a measure de- overrule our earlier indicated, we ground if, effect de- case Avhere to this application has special cisions. That idea time at the of California note, maker was a resident fendant, all times since, ever remained such has signed it was that state. of the courts of process of the reach within it, part “A of a statute becomes a judicial construction it should be adhered to Avhichaccrue aftemvards rights as to change To divest them rights. of those protection retroactively.” Sutherland, Lewis’ legislate is to construction inter Fairfield following, alia, (2 ed.) Statutory Construction L. 100 U. S. ed. County Gallatin, change where a ordinary application That rule has its judicial on vested operate adversely construction of a statute would were There but the fact remains rights. here, that, are none such Avhich adopt we to overrule Luce v. Clarke and the rule practical amending AveAvouldas a matter be adopt, there refused to years, Avith for over 50 present which has stood effect a statute legislature on the it should be thought part no with *4 bar and removing reinstating remedy Avouldbe the the changed. We and character of action, nobody the number Avhich causes observation shows that whatever criti- That noAvestimate. can is on the Clarke, error, any, enhancing side of Luce v. cism did not have It by repose. intended a statute repose Ry. M. & Co. v. St. P. M. import Fitzgerald injurious D. P. & by Rosse St. 212, 43 Am. R. overruled 336, 168, A. A. S. R. 591, 71 N. L. R. 20,W. Co. 68 Minn. Ry. should be affirmed. judgment that the It follows So ordered.
Peterson, (dissenting). Justice N. W. Clarke,
The rule of Luce v. funda it, reiterated in cases which follow is predicated (§ 9201), under the statute arises, mental error that a cause weight overwhelming of a debtor’s domicile. The of a consists that a of action authority the effect defend duty corresponding in the right plaintiff, primary a cause defendant. Of these essentials of by and a breach ant, : (5 ed.) Remedies Pomeroy says, 528, 347, Code action, page must con- “Every simple, however or however action, complicated right elements, primary tain these essential elements. Of these duty and .delict or combined constitute the cause wrong legal term, action in sense of the and as it is used the codes foundation They legal several States. are the cause or right springs, right of action this of action identi- whence the right’ designated my analysis.” with the ‘remedial cal The rule stated the learned author was announced this C. M. & Co. Minn. N. King Ry. St. P. 82 W. L. A. A. R. universally accepted S. 238. It is the rule. Utah, 28, Lawson v. 95 P. Swift v. 127 Kan. Tripp, 520; Hahl v. 169 Y. L. R. Sugo, A. Co. v. George A. R. South Bend Chilled Plow C. Cribb Co. N. W. 675. The cause of action different plainly 105 Wis. from remedy or relief itself. from the remedial ed.) (5 Remedies cases cited the notes. Pomeroy, Code arises at occurs of action where the breach The cause is the last essential element make a com- A of action cannot be said cause of action. plete the note alone. Then matter delivery of is one signing *5 392 breach of is a It not arise until right duty.
of or does action. of of the cause final essential element duty. That is the sue, to the rise to the duty gives breach of The Am. R. 384, 17 N. Y. 574, 578, v. 59 Patterson, In Patterson action. the court said: meant to what is
“Nor is there room for difference as arisen,’ ‘cause of action has accrued,’ ‘cause of action has or phrases * * * contracting indebtedness, They do not mean the making action does not accrue or arise a cause of out of the alone, nonperformance of indebtedness but contract it as well.” Hoyt v. of performance. place default or breach occurs at the P. 152 Cal. 93 Dodd, McKee v. (390) ; Minn. 362
McNeil, 13 Theis, Idaho, v. 15 82; A. R. West L.R.A.(N.S.) 780, S. v. 58; A. R. Swift L.R.A. (N.S.) 472, P. 24; N. E. 220 N. Y. 170; Angle, P. Klotz v. Kan. Plummer 639; 176 N. Y. S. Div. Miller, App. Whiting 28, 95 Tripp, Utah, 220; N. Y. S. Lawson Lowenthal, 165 Pond 474; F. (C. C.) Co. v. Found Treasure Min. Drake F. (C. A.) C. Mill & Elevator Co. v. Clark Creek (C. A.) Box C. City Fibre Co. Board v. Kansas Box Co. Auglaize There Laws, Restatement, Conflict 822. See (2d) 35 F. as, example, anticipatory this, exceptions some may be to decide that but it is not us contract, breaches contract breach of involving anticipatory now. The cases question Casein Co. 206 general hold that rule is as stated. Wester v. involving Ann. 1914B, 377, N. Y. 100 N. E. Cas. a case contract, stated, action for in which it is anticipatory breach 514: p. for a arises a cause of action contract where place “The contract is to universally- place generally is —the —almost why breach of contract place The reason be performed. of its is that unless place performance place the' generally is or performance anticipated is waived of performance or determined such that there is a breach that it can be breach.” there is a whether Restatement,
See Conflict 370: Laws, “The law of whether a performance determines breach has occurred.”
These all hold authorities that a breach final essential ele- is the ment necessary give rise to a cause of action and that *6 of action arises at the place of performance because the breach is place. at that The statute of California has been construed in harmony with view. If this had been plaintiff a resident of Cali- fornia and defendant a resident of Minnesota suit were in brought the courts California payable there, courts that would hold state that the cause action arose where occurred, namely, in California, and hence would not be subject to the the Minnesota statute of limitations. v. Dodd, supra. McKee
A cannot be said to under arise, the statute (§ 9201), at than The place. place more one distinction between the where a cause of action arises and the debtor’s domicile erased, it be, must to reach the decision this case. Both as statute and recognize Thus, law the distinction. the Restatement, decision it b, comment is said: Laws, Conflict frequently provide “Statutes that may be main- if it has been statute of tained limitations at the inor, accrued some cases, where the action at the domicil of place defendant.” Ind. D. Snoddy, 65 Am. Riser considers a statute which bar should that of that the be provided state the debtor’s statute, Under our the bar is that domicile. of the place where arises. By holding cause of action the cause of action domicile, debtor’s instead of at the place arises where it arises the statute law, a matter of has been amended by judicially legis- court’s notion of lating substitute what the law is or should express legislature’s provision. for the We should not forget be restrains implications a statute Avhich construing we are contem statute that the plain of construction. It is process it is Therefore place. arises one that the plates arising of action of a cause possibility to talk about useless here asserted allows to be the statute one than more It does arose.” “of the bar [the action] debtor where the places the bar of the admitting not provide 604.2, Laws, Beale, See 3 Conflict or resided. might p. adherence compel doctrine of stare decisis does not followed it. The and other cases which have
Luce Clarke as the legal proposition, is not erroneous as a of that case unjust they deprived, to our citizens are but it is admits, law, against to assert their claims by our decision of California of California under while citizens citizens law of that state of assert privilege by the decision are accorded the citizens of our and other states. See against their claims ing L.R.A. (N.S.) 780, Cal. 93 P. Dodd, McKee stare decisis deny course no one will that the rule of A. S. 82. Of In not minimized. v. G. one shoitld State is a wholesome 303, 335, 202, 210, hasty we held that Co. 106 Ry. “ought fear, to be examined without and re decisions and crude *7 that even a series of reluctance” and decisions is vised without law. In 7 R. C. L. p. 1008, 35, what is the ahvays conclusive thus stated: rule is strong respect precedent ingrained which is in our “But the reasonable Avhichbalks at respect perpetuation is a system legal policy it is the manifest our courts to hold the error, legal to reason and justice, decisis subordinate of stare doctrine departure when such to therefrom avoid depart error.” pernicious perpetuation frightened by our apprehensions. we should be Mr. I think Nor do them. says minimizes He that the “picture of the Cardozo Justice lured into a course litigant light the false beAvildered ruin when the light extinguished to meet decision, only aof excited figment part the most overruled, is for decision thought any there is ever rules only and that “the brains,” after the by injustice that are invoked are those changing .event “in rarest only observes intrench itself.” He shelter had if different have been would conduct instances, ever, Cardozo, The Growth change foreseen.” known and the been 122. Law, p. overruling by the doctrine have not been deterred That we decided is evi erroneously believed which we decisions a reference to a few of which court, decisions of this by many denced 201 Minn. Lopes, illustrative. State will be A. N. L. R. 66 Minn. 68 W. overruling Howard, State v. Osterberg, A. Midland Loan Finance Co. v. 178, 61 681, overruling Schnedler, 275 W. Holmes v. W. 908. Numerous other could be 483, 223 N. instances enumerated. why
With this record it is hard to understand we should adhere but which rulings are not erroneous we admit to be wrong. It seems to me that in which ought this is case we not to overruling feel the least restrained from our decisions. prior adopted The courts of other states which the same did rule as we in Luce v. Clarke have not hesitated to overrule such when decisions they their error and to the correct rule. perceived adopt See Swift 170, overruling Kan. P. Bruner v. Martin, P. A. 165, L.R.A.(N.S.) 775, Kan. S. R. 14 Ann. Theis, Idaho, 167, 17 L.R.A.(N.S.) Cas. West A. Harvard L. Rev. 62, criticizing S. R. See Luce v. Clarke. below should be reversed.
The decision (dissenting). Chief Justice Gallagi-ier, expressed by with the views Mr. Justice agree I Peterson.