Schultz v. Board of Commissioners
Indiana Supreme Court
From the Cass Circuit Court.
1Opinion of the CourtElliott, J.
The claim of the appellant is-set forth in various forms in his complaint, but it is evident that, although stated in different forms, there is only one claim, and that is for money overpaid by him as county treasurer.
It is quite clear that as to those paragraphs of the complaint which state an ordinary claim not evidenced by a writing, the plea of the six years statute of limitations is a complete bar. It is not necessary to cite authorities in support of the proposition that the statute may be pleaded by any one against whom an ordinary claim, not evidenced by a written instrument, is urged.
2Cases cited6 opinions
- M'Crea v. PurmortCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1836
- Bank of the United States v. DANIELSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
- Ware v. State ex rel. LongIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- Lansing v. StarrNew York Court of Chancery · 1816
- Lewis v. MarshallU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky · 1829
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Craven v. CravenIndiana Supreme Court · 1913
- State ex rel. Graham v. WaltersIndiana Court of Appeals · 1903
- Independent School District of Union v. Independent School District of UnionSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904