Santa Fe daily New Mexican., 1897-10-27
FOREIGN JUDGMENTS.
An opinion of the Territorial Supreme
Court Sustaining Statute of
Limitations.

1n tne matter or stern q krauss, plain
tiffs in error, vs.. Paul T. Bates, defendant
in error, from Bernalillo county, Judge
Laughlin handed down the opinion of the
Territorial Supreme court, holding tha,
the court below properly sustained the
motion of the defendant to strike out the
replication of plaintiffs to their plea of
the statutes of Limitation, and that, no
reasonable error appearing in the record,
the judgment of the court should be
affirmed. Chief Justice Smith and Asso-
ciate Justices Hamilton and Bantz con-
CURED in this opinion.
The plaintiffs in error filed this suit
as an action for the recovery of debt of
$993.S1, alleged to have been due to them
by Paul T. Bates and R. NJ. Bates, doing
business under the firm name of Bates
Brothers in Alabama. Judgment was re-
covered for the amount named in the
state of Alabama.
At the time the Judgment was rendered
one of the defendants, Paul T. Bates, was
resident of Bernalillo county, N. NJ,
but the residence of the plaintiffs is not
disclosed in the record.
The defendant pleaded the general is-
sue, the null til record, and the statute of
limitations of seven years. The plain
tlffs Joined issues as to the first two
pleas and demurred ss to the third. The
demurrer was overruled by the court, and
the plaintiffs filed their replication as to
the third plea, alleging that at the time
the cause of action accrued to them the
defendant was out of the territory, and
that he afterwards came into the terrl-
tory and that they commenced their suit
within seven years next after defendants
arrival In the territory, and that imme-
diately after the cause of action accrued
he removed from the territory and did not
return until 1895, during all of which
time the defendant was q nonresident, and
that the snit was begun within seven
years after the cause accrued to them, ex-
cluding the time the defendant was a
non resident. The motion of the defend
ant to strike this replication from the
files was sustained by the court below,
and the plaintiffs, eieotng to stand upon
their pleadings, judgment was entered for
the defendant.
The opinion reci.es that the defendant
in error pleaded the statute of limitations
as bar to the cause of action and relied
upon that statute as complete defense
quotes in full the statutes of limitations;
then adds:
"By the replication it is seen that the
defendant came into this territory for the
first time during the year 1895. The
statute began to run on the approval of |
The act, February "a, 1891, and the plain
lifts had one year from that time within |
which to commence their action; this they |
lid not do, because they say they could |
lot bring their action within the year
yiven in the proviso for the reason that |
defendant did not come into the territory
or the first time until about three years
'fter the time within which to commence
heir action, as prescribed in the proviso;
md they contend that the statute did not
'egin to run against them until the de-
endsnt became resident of their juris-
iction.
"This would be in effect to hold that a
oreign judgment creditor could maintain
q action upon his judgment existing at
he time the act of 1891 went into effect
t any time within fifteen years from the
ate the right of action accrued under
&c. 1851 supra; or any time within seven
ears under the act of 1891. The first
osition would render the act of 1891
ugatory; and the last contention is un.
enable because the seven year limitation
applicable only to judgments obtained
tier the act of 1891 became effective.
9th contentious are contrary to the
gislative intent and the two acts read
I'D construed together do not support
10 constructions sought to be placed i
pom them, and we are of opinion that the t
ea interposed by the defendant below :
rs good and bar to the action as stated
ut is manifest that the legislative in
ut was to give holders of foreign judg !
ents existing at the time of the passage ,
the act one year from that date within
,ich to commence their actions, and if
It such action should be forever barred 7
GREATER. The fact that the defendant
me into the territory for the first time =
rec years after the time within which 7
right of action became barred, we do ]
t think removed the bar or interrup pied 7
3 continuous running of the statute"