Inter-Mountain Republican | 1908-03-29 | Page 13 | Dakota Statute of Limitations Bars Suit for Breach of Contract

Dakota Statute of Limitations Bars Suit for Breach of Contract I The difference between bet the statute tute of or limitations as it is calculated in South Dakota and antI the same ame statute as asit asH asIt it H appears on the books bools in Utah figured in an nn opinion handed down clown yesterday I b by the Supreme court Thc opinion affirms tho the judgment of the tho lower court ourt an and 1 was written by Chief Justice McCarty and was concurred in by hy his associates The The record shows that in 1889 B. B A. A contracted to lo sell property properly be belonging he- he longing longin to his brother R. R B. B Tripp Inthis In Inthis this city to John A. A Groesbeck The Time contract price was of or which GOO OO was to bo be paid in cash an and the thc balance In ten days This contract sas as approved by the tIre owner of or tho the property who sho lived Ji in South Dakota rho The contract Jed carrIed cd with It an agree agree- n agreement rec- rec mont ment to furnish a a. warranty warrant deed for forthe forthe the he property Eleven en years after a tr the making mal of I Ithe the contract Groesbeck assigned it to John Lawson the tho appellant In this cn care e In 1902 Lauon Lawon brought suit for Cor breach of contract Tho The defense held that TrIpp being a resident of oC South Dakota tho the contract was v vir virtually sir l'- l' a South Dakota contract and therefore barred by tho the statute of limitations Imitation as the Iho time is calculated by ho bytho bythe tho the South Dakota statute books On the other hand Lawson Lawton claimed that tho the contract was Utah mt made and ond that the statute of oC limitations here herd would kayo have prevented il It from being outlawed 1 At the end of oC the trial of oC the case the lower lo court held helel that It was a South Dakota contract and that the statute of limitations there barred any suit uit for breach of contract I Lawson app appealed alp 1 to the Iho Supreme court and tho opinion upheld 1 he tho action of the tho lower tribunal