The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-12-16
Takes Away Benefit of Statute
of Limitations.
CALL 1T DRASTIC
Goes Farther, Say Attorneys
Than POpuIists Ever Did.
LAWYERS Contend That the Law
Is Faulty.

Attorneys for foreign corporations do
ing business in Kansas are considerably
exercised over an opinion handed down
by the supreme court Saturday which
bars such corporations from the benefit
of the statute of limitations. 1t virtual
Iy means that suit for damages
against such a corporation may be
brought at any time, even a lifetime
after the damages are alleged to have
accrued. 1t opens the way to all sorts
of suits against railroad companies, in
surance concerns and all other corpora
lions which are not organized under the
laws of the state.
The case in which the decision was
rendered was a damage suit brought by
Sallie Walters against the Metropolitan
Street Railway company of Kansas
City, which is not a Kansas corporation.
statute of limitations, but the supreme
court holds that the statute of limita-
lions does not run as to foreign corpor-
atoms because they are ''out of the
state" The statute under which this
decision is made is section II of the
code of civil procedure, or section 4449
of the general statutes of 1901. AS
quoted by the court, in the opinion pre-
pared by Justice Smith, the section is
as follows:
IF when a cause of action accrues
against a person, he be out of the state,
the period limited for the COM
mencement of the action shall not begin
to run until he comes into the state,
and if after a cause of action accrueS he
depart from the state, the time of his
absence shall not be computed as any
part of the period within which the &C
ton must be brought
1t has been commonly held during re-
cent years that a corporation is a'per-
SOM within the meaning of the law.
and applying this construction to the
statute quoted the supreme court ar
rived at the decision that the statute OF
limitations does not run as to foreign
corporations in Kansas. The following
is the syllabus of the opinion:
"a foreign corporation is outside the
state within the meaning of section Il
of the code, and, for that reason, cannot
avail itself of the statute of limitations
of this state"
Such a decision was unlocked for from
the supreme court, and few persons re-
allied its full import when it was first
given. It is now apparent, however,
that it can make the big outside cor
pora lions more trouble than any decis-
ion or law that the state courts or leg
islatures have made in a long time.
1.-THE decision is more drastic than
anything that was done during Popu-
list days" said one attorney. The Pop
ulists did not begin to do anything that
will make outside corporations as much
trouble as that decision WILL
Heretofore it has always been sup
posed that when service could be OBJ
tanned against a corporation through
one of its agents, the statute of limita-
lions would run against any action
that might accrue against the corpora
ton. 7 his superstition received Sc
we're shock in the decision of the SUI
prerre court Saturday, which says that
the statute of limitations does not run
in favor of a foreign corporation, no
matter how easy it is to secure service
against the corporation.
Lawyers do not contend that the
court is wrong in it's Interpretation of
the law, but that the law is faulty.
The wording of the statute, combined
with past decisions of the courts, do
not give foreign corporations the same
protection against old damage suits
and trumped-up claims, that is given
to Kansas corporations.
The decision works great hardship
against railroads, insurance companies,
and other corporations which are or
ganized in some other state" said
Well-knOwn attorney today. 'These
corporations are especially subject to
SUITS railroads to damage suits, and
insurance companies to old claims, and
this decision opens the way for all
sorts of suits against such corpora
TONS A claim for damages twenty
five years old may be put in against
a railroad company after all the posi-
BILE witnesses are dead except one or
two who are willing to testify against
the railroad company. Such suit
might be very unjust, but you can cas-
lily see how a verdict might be secured
from a jury. The statute of limita-
lions is meant to protect people against
lust such unjust suits. 1t is generally
supposed that the time prescribed in
the statute for bringing various kinds
of actions is very ample, and If they
do not institute their suits within the
prescribed time they are barred from
bringing it at all. The exception quoted
by the court is meant to protect per-
sons with claims against those who go
outside the jurisdiction of the state
courts and upon whom service cannot
be had 1t is, of course, just that the
statute of limitations should not run
in favor of persons who go out of the
state on purpose to keep from being
sued. but in the case of railroad COM
panies they have millions of dollars
worth of property in the state, they
maintain agents on whom service in
any kind of suit can be made, and
it would seem no more than just that
such corporations should have the ben
eft of the statute of limitations The
court seems to be pretty well backed
in its decision, however, and imagine
the only relief for foreign corporations
will have to come from the legislature.