Day v. Dages

Trial by the court and judgment below in favor of appellee. The errors assigned are that the conrt erred in overruling appellant’s demurr rer to the complaint, in overruling motion for a continuance, and overruling motion for a new trial.

*229The complaint is assailed upon two grounds. First, that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; second, that it shows upon its face that the cause of action is' barred by the six years’ statute of limitations.

The complaint avers, in substance, that in the year 1888, Thomas G. Day and William 0. Griffith were, under the firm name of…