The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1915-12-17

Co. v. Farnum, 1OS, Cal. 567, Pac. 447)
Kan. 622, IS Pac. 2oo, that a cause of
action for fees not accounted for
and wrongfully retained by the coun-
ty clerk accrues at the end of each
quarter, when the allowance of salary
is made; and is barred, under the three
year statute limitations. if the action
is not brought within that period. 1t
was also held that the statutory limi-
tation could not be extended by the
failure to demand the payment of the
fees collected, as no demand was ne
cessary for fees so illegally retained.
In People v. Van Ness, 76 Cal. III, Is
Pac. l3o, the supreme court of Cali
fernia held that the statute of limita-
tons applies to actions brought by the
state for sums collected and held by
public officer, which the statute re-
quired him to pay into the public
treasury. In People v. Melone. 70 Cal.
574, IS Pac. 2o4, the suprece court OF
California held that the statute of linn
itations applied to the state. That was
an action against the Secretary of the
State to recover fees received by him,
which by law he was required to pay
over to the state. The following cases
hold that the statute of limitations
runs against a municipal corporation:
1t has been suggested that the stat
ute of limitations does not run against
a county to recover public money
wrongfully withheld by one of its fdu
cial agents, and that the clerk received
said money as such an agent. We can
not concede that view, as the whole
current of modern authority is to the
effect that implied trusts are within
the statute, and that the statute begins
to run from the time the money was
wrongfully received. In a note to
section 343 of the Code of Civil Pro-
cedure of California, which section is
the same as section 1900 of the Re-
vised Statutes, it is stated that, "by
the whole current of modern authori-
ties, implied trusts are within the sta
tute, and the statute begins to run
from the time the wrong was commit
ted by which the person becomes
chargeable as trustee by implication"
To sustain the position that the stat
ute of limitations does not run against
county, counsel for respondent cites:
Fremont Co. v. Brandon, E Ida. 482.
So Pac. 264; Ada Co. v. Cess. Ida,
Oil, 43 Pac. II; Elmore Co. v. Alturas
Co., 4 Idaho, las, oS Am. St. Rep. So.
81 Pac. $40; Dunbar v. Board, Ida.
407 4o Pac. 400. In the first case
cited this court held that, the defend
ant being a iducial agent of county,
and having received money in trust
for the county, the statute of limita-
tons did not run against the county
in an action to recover such money.
The statute of limitations of this
state is expressly made applicable to
the state. 1t is, therefore, applicable
to the counties of the state. and. so
far as the case of Fremont County v.
Brandon holds that said statute does
not run against the county, the same
is hereby overruled. The other three
cases above cited are not put in point
in the case at bar. The Judgment is
reversed and remanded, with instruc-
tons to sustain the demurrer. and for
further proceedings in conformity
with the views expressed in this opin-
ion. Costs of this appeal are award
ed to the appellant