Case ID: walker_4/html/0279-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

KLINE vs. MOHRY.
    In order to take a running account out of the statute of limitations there must be mutual accounts or demands for items other than money.
    Error to Common Pleas of Lehigh county, No. 296, January Term, 1884.
    On June 16, 1883, Gotthard Mohry recovered a judgment against David T. Horlacher, and issued attachment execution with notice to Tilghman R. Kline, as garnishee, and obtained service on him the same day. On the trial it was proved that Kline had bought a pair of horses from Horlacher and the balance due thereon was $350. Kline made defense that on June 7,1883, he had purchased a claim of Sylvester Bieber against David Horlacher amounting to $344.58.. This claim was a balance due on a book account extending from September 15, 1876, to May 17, 1883, for flour, feed, &c., sold by Bieber to Horlacher. The account was not disputed, but on behalf of Mohry it was urged that all items prior to June 16, 1877, were barred by the statute of limitations. There were payments made on account in each year from ’76 to ’83, and Horlacher hauled coal in 1879 and furnished 3 bushels of wheat in 1882, and Kline contended that these payments made it a mutual account and tolled the statute. The Court, however, held that these were not accounts between merchants, and that the 'statute barred the right to recover for such items as were more than six years old. This was the only controverted question in the case, and the Court having charged as indicated, the jury brought in a verdict against the garnishee, who then took this writ of error.
    
      M. C. L. Kline, Esq., for plaintiff in error, cited :
    Catling vs. Skoulding, 6 T. R., 189; Van Swearingen vs. Harris, 1 W. & S., 356; Thomson vs. Hopper, 1 W. & S., 467; Chambers vs. Marks, 25 Pa., 296; Adams vs. Carroll, 85 Pa., 209; Hannan vs. Engelman, 340 Wis., 278; Ingram vs. Sherard, 17 S. & R., 347.
    
      L. Smoyer and E. F. Schock, Esqs., contra, cited:
    Act Mar. 27,1713; Sm. Laws, 76; Ingles vs. Haigh, 8 M. & W., 769; Spring vs. Gray, 6 Pet., 121; Toland vs. Sprague, 12 Peters, 300; Thomson vs. Hopper, 1 W. & S., 467; Hay vs. Kramer, 2 W. & S., 137; Lowber vs. Smith, 7 Pa., 381; Ingram vs. Sherard, 17 S. & R., 347.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Common Pleas on March 3d, 1884, in the following opinion :

Per Curiam.

In order to take a running account out of the statute of limitations, it is not necessary that the account should be strictly between merchant and merchant. It may be between other persons, provided the mutuality of accounts of the proper character exists. A charge or entry on a book of money is not such an item as is necessary. It is not for goods sold and delivered, nor for work and labor done. Money is not the proper subject of book account. The portion of the account rejected in this case was for the time when there were no mutual accounts. On the one- side, it was the payment of money only. The unquestioned facts in evidence justified the charge of the Court.

Judgment affirmed.