Court Opinion

ID: 9845200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:16:37.012058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:54.360701
License: Public Domain

SICKEL, J.
(dissenting). Defendant was a resident of the State of Montana at all times material to this controversy and until April 1, 1947, when he became a resident of Belle Fourche, South Dakota. Action was commenced April 12, 1952, within six years after the defendant became a resident of this state. It seems to me that the operation of the statute of limitations, SDC 33.0232(4), was suspended against the defendant because of the fact of his nonresidence and of his being a resident of another state, until he established his residence in South Dakota, and that his occasional trips into this state did not set the statute running in his favor. Seaver v. Stratton, 133 Fla. 183, 183 So. 335; Hill v. Lindsay, 210 N.C. 694, 188 S.E. 406; Milton v. Babson, 6 Allen, Mass., 322; Rockford v. Whiting, 118 Mass. 337; Stoudt v. Hanson, 62 Mont. 422, 205 P. 253; 37 C.J., Limitations of Actions, § 404; 54 C.J.S., Limitations of Actions, § 212.
It is therefore my opinion that judgment should have been entered against the defendant on the note.