Opinion ID: 1898610
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: statute of limitations laches estoppel

Text: This case, as heretofore shown, arose from the breach of a fiduciary's obligation. There was also a claim upon a promise of a 10% increase in price contained in a letter which is quoted hereinbefore. Defendants plead the three-year statute of limitations, Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 729 (Supp. 1966) which covers actions on open accounts and unwritten contracts; but our six-year statute of limitations, Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 722 (1956), covers suits on written contracts, cases provable by writing and torts. The lower court held section 722 was applicable here. The action was either in tort for a wrongful breach of duty [see Knox Glass Bottle Co. v. Underwood, 228 Miss. 699, 89 So.2d 799, 91 So.2d 843 (1956), citing Restatement of Torts § 874 (1939); compare Boyd v. Applewhite, 121 Miss. 879, 84 So. 16 (1920)], or it was a suit on the letter above quoted and would not be covered by section 729. The Court was correct in holding the six-year statute applicable. Even in equity, there would be no laches insofar as events embraced within the six years immediately preceding the filing of the case is concerned. See Bolden v. Gatewood, 250 Miss. 93, 164 So.2d 721 (1964). The violation of the fiduciary relationship and the dominating influence continued until the business closed about the middle of June 1964. Suit was filed March 9, 1965. Estoppel does not apply either. The jury found in effect that Bentz dominated Gilder. To constitute acquiescence and estoppel, the party against whom it is pled must act freely and voluntarily and not by reason of the domination of the party pleading estoppel. Further, it is simply a matter of making restitution of that of which the appellee was deprived by the wrongful tortious acts of appellants. For a definition of estoppel, see Crowe v. Fotiades, 224 Miss. 422, 80 So.2d 478 (1955).