75 P. 1055 | Kan. | 1904
The opinion of the court was delivered by
On March 15, 1894, Stewart Brothers sold to the Bank of the Indian Territory, for $206.66, a warrant for $266.66, which had been issued to them
The only question which it is necessary to determine is whether the action was barred by the statute of limitations. The theory of plaintiffs in error is that a cause of action accrued, if at all, immediately upon the sale of the warrant, and that the statute then began to run. If this is correct, the judgment must be reversed. The claim of defendant in error is that the operation of the statute of limitations did not begin until the bank received notice of the invalidity of the warrant', by the filing of the answer in June, 1900, in the action brought against the county. It contends that up to (hat time the facts which rendered the warrant void had been fraudulently concealed by defendants. This contention is based upon the fact that the warrant, upon its face, purported to have been issued “on account of jail cells for county and costs,” and that it was issued upon a verified account, the corresponding item of which was the sum of $266.66, charged for “freight and costs of erecting in place,” referring to the jail cells.
It may be sufficient to say that this case falls within the rule announced in Railway Co. v. Grain Co., ante, page 585, 75 Pac. 105. But the doctrine of that case
This distribution of the amounts corroborates the statement of defendants that the $266.66 item was
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded ■for further proceedidgs in accordance with the views herein expressed.