Court Opinion

ID: 9825676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:54:51.541285+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:22.844255
License: Public Domain

Ed. F. McFaddiN, Justice, concurring. I reach the same result as does the majority; but I differ from the majority as regards the issue of limitations. The majority holds that the plea of limitations is not available to Evans, since § 9465, Pope’s Digest, does not apply to this situation. It is unnecessary, I think, to distinguish the situation in the case at bar from the § 9465, because T think the Evans payment of $200 to Miss McHugh constituted a tolling of the statute of limitations. To elaborate: Evans testified (a) that he trusted Comer to pay the taxes; (b) that he was to repay Comer for tlie taxes; and (c) that when he found that Comer had not paid the taxes, he paid Miss McHugh the $200 which she demanded for the tax title. We held in the case of McHugh v. Jeffries, 207 Ark. 890, 183 S. W. 2d 309, that Miss McHugh was a trustee for the Comer estate. So, it appears to me that the $200 paid by Evans to Miss McHugh was in reality a payment to Comer’s estate for taxes, which Evans testified that he had agreed to pay to Comer. Thus, the payment of the $200 to Miss McHugh by Evans would constitute a tolling of the statute of Imitations, even if § 9465, Pope’s Digest applied.