Miller v. Board of Supervisors
Miller v. Board of Supervisors
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The rule is that, where a demand is necessary to perfect a right of action, the statute of limitations commences to run from the demand. Some modification of the rule, where the party has it in his power to make his right of action complete, and delays to do it, will be found stated in 13 Amer. & Eng. Enc. of Law, p. 726 et seq. Tried by the cases there cited, we think the plaintiff’s action was not barred ; but, independently of that, -we are unable to say that any statute of limitation applies to the presentation of a claim against the county. All the statutes apply to actions or suits, and one is not maintainable against the board of supervisors until presentation and refusal to pay. Carroll v. Board of Police, 28 Miss. 38. No statute in terms applies to such case, and statutes of
After the refusal of the board to pay the claim, the statute ran against the plaintiff’s cause of action, but time enough to bar it did not elapse.
Reversed and remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- R. N. Miller v. Board of Supervisors Hinds County
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Statute of Limitations. Not extended by construction. Statutes of limitation will not be applied by construction to cases not embraced by their terms. 2. Same. Right dependent upon demand. Where a demand is necessary to perfect a right of action, the general rule is that the statute of limitations commences to run from the date of the demand. 3. Same. Claim against county. When statute begins to run. No statute of limitations in terms applies to a claim against a county before presentation to the board of supervisors for payment. The statutes apply alone to actions or suits, and as no suit is maintainable on any claim against the county until payment is refused, the period of limitation only begins to run at the time of such refusal. 4. Same. Case in judgment. Certain sums due appellant on account of fees as district attorney were collected by the county, which the board of supervisors refused to pay over. This suit was brought by him against-the county for the amount more than three years after the collection of the money, but less than three years after the refusal to pay. Held, that the action was not barred by the statute of limitations of three years.