Show STEVENS STEVEN ROGERS S to ow famous case reversed by the supreme court the court gives an opinion which declares that until the defendant disavowed the trust reposed in him the statute of limitation could not be invoked sit sat labe nov 5 51 the supreme court reversed a judgment and find directed the lo 10 loher er court to gran t a new trial in and opinion banded handed dowa oday today in fit the case of 0 sidney steven Ste veng appellant hilpl kolant vs va lindsay R rogers respondent mr stevens delivered to mr rogers a attorney of the same city fifty lour promissory bots to collect the notes amoun amounted tad to A contract was nas entered into between the parties pari Jee which bound risers R agers to use all diligence in collecting the notes and if they could not be collected without en fuit suit be he was to report tile act fact to elevens stevens who bound himself to furnish all ne necessary cesary costs brought bait BD it against the at attorney lorney alleging A a breach of contract in that he be did neglect to collect the botes it was also alleged that rogers returned twenty eight of the notes but that he dd d d not blate whether any put of them had been collected and also iso refue refused to account forsbe or the remaining twenty six she stevens alleged that by reason of this be was damaged ii ia the sum of rogers in bis his answer admitted having the notes but claimed that he I 1 ved u to the spirit and leiter letter of the he further ilenea 11 thai that c 1 0 11 against him was barred by the statute of limitations at too trial rogers admit el ed that be bad not ze the twentysix twenty six notes i the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the de defendant finding that plaintiffs cause caute of action was tarred by the statute of limitations and also fiad ing that stevens had bad not unstained usta ined any injury or damages regard ing nc the defense on the stai statute tite ot of limitations the court bolde bolds that it is denied the dependant deen de enfant dant under the laute and says the burden waa was urion tm to prove them unless the evidence the plaintiff furnished the proof until the defendant di avowed the trust reposed in lim him the court holds that the statute could not commence against the plaintiffs right of action the court holds that the lower court erred ia in its judgment and concludes as follows when there has been a fall full and fair of thecie theca eon seon trial inobe in the court below and the appellate court can eay say as a matter of liw law tatt no more than damages dan osea was proven a judgment of reversal wil will I 1 not bo be made r bat when the court is not clear as to such presan presentation tation and trial a reversal should hould be granted and a new trial ordered in view of the allegations of plaintiffs complaint and of the evide evidence nep in the record we are not that plain plaintiffs titre case vas not fully and fairly presented to the trial court the judgment appealed from is revered VeIr ted and the court below Is directed to toft grant ranta a new trial the opinion is writ written in by chief justice zane ane and is concurred in by justice bartch and rod justice miner |