Court Opinion

ID: 3805122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 07:46:01.816129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:56:28.420085
License: Public Domain

At the time the foregoing opinion was prepared by the writer, we were unable to find any Oklahoma decisions passing upon the question of tolling limitations to special statutes, and it is stated in the body of the above opinion that we were setting a precedent in this case, but we find, however, that this question has been passed upon by this court in the case of Bean v. Rumrill, 69 Oklahoma, 172 P. 452, opinion by Stewart, Commissioner; opinion filed February 5, 1918, and motion for rehearing overruled April 30, 1918. The following portions of said opinion are given, and set out the portions of the holdings applicable to the propositions involved in the above opinion in case of George et al. v. Connecticut Fire Insurance Co.:
"We next consider the proposition of the defendant that plaintiffs' cause of action is barred by limitation. The original action in this case was begun January 6, 1915. The notes were due May 26, 1912. The judgment was paid by proceeds of sale of the property May 12, 1913. The Constitution, with reference to usury, among other things, provides: 'In case a greater rate of interest has been paid, the person by whom it has been paid, or his legal representatives, may recover from the person, firm, or corporation taking or receiving the same, in an action in the nature of an action of debt, twice the amount of the interest so paid: Provided, such action shall be brought within two years after the maturity of such usurious contract.' Article 14, § 3.
"In section 1005, Rev. Laws 1910, will be found the same language, and such is at present both the constitutional and statutory law of this state. Section 4660, Rev. Laws 1910, reads: 'If, when a cause of action accrues against a person, he be out of the state, or has absconded or concealed himself, the period limited for the commencement of the action shall not begin to run until he comes into the state, or while he is so absconded or concealed; and if he depart from the state, or abscond, or conceal himself, the time of his absence or concealment shall not be computed as any part of the period within which the action must be brought.'"
The defendant in the cited case was a nonresident of the state, and was absent from the state at the time the cause of action accrued, and was continually absent since the accrual of the cause of action. We give the further extract with fullness, for the reason that the rule that we have sought to apply in the above opinion is fully discussed and the law applied. We think this is of sufficient importance that this supplement to the opinion should be printed in the reports, and we ask that this supplement be added in the nature of a footnote, or otherwise, to the above opinion:
"But it is urged that the cause of action in the present case arose because of a special statute providing a remedy which did not exist at common law, and that therefore the limitation is a part of the remedy, and follows it into any forum where action may be lodged. At common law an action of debt could be maintained to recover interest paid in excess of the legal rate. Our enactment merely enlarges the common-law remedy. The nature of the remedy is specifically preserved; it being provided that the remedy is by 'an action in the nature of an action for debt.' The reasonable inference is that it was the intention of the lawmakers that the same rules with reference to tolling the statute of limitation should apply as obtains in any other action for debt. In this connection *Page 179 
we call attention to section 2948, Rev. Laws 1910, which reads:
"'The rule of the common law, that statutes in derogation thereof are to be strictly construed, has no application to the laws of this state, which are to be liberally construed with a view to effect their objects and to promote justice.'
"It is evident that the statute in question is to be construed, not strictly, but liberally, with a view to effect its objects and to promote justice. The common law is not such a monarch that the duly accredited representatives of the people must stand in awe of its stern mandates. It deserves respect as the garnered wisdom of the ages, but its principles came by gradual development and as a result of progressive departures from existing customs. Must our lawmakers and the courts, with oriental devotion, live only by worship of the ancestral glories of the law? If so, then stagnation follows, and the stream of progress must cease to flow.
"It is urged by defendant that the law authorizing the recovery of twice the amount of usurious interest paid is constitutional, and does not contemplate the modifying provisions of section 4660, supra, tolling the limitation in case of absence from the state.
"The remedy is authorized by the Constitution, and is now both constitutional and statutory, but we have a right to assume that, in naming the time within which the action shall he brought, it was contemplated that such limitation should be modified by the same tolling provision which applied to other causes of action. Added force is given to this suggestion by section 2 of the schedule to the Constitution, which reads:
"'All laws in force in the territory of Oklahoma at the time of the admission of the state into the Union, which are not repugnant to this Constitution, and which are not locally inapplicable, shall be extended to and remain in force in the state of Oklahoma until they expire by their own limitation or are altered or repealed by law.'
"Section 4660, supra, was a part of the law of the territory at the time of adopting the Constitution, and has remained a part of the law of the state since such time and up to the present. It is not repugnant to the Constitution in any respect. The section is general, and by its terms applies to any cause of action, to a statutory as well as a common-law action. The limitation provided for actions for the recovery of usurious interest is not dissimilar to, and is in pari materia with, other provisions as to time within which other actions may be brought. The object of the usury law was to promote justice among men and to protect necessitous citizens from the avarice of those who are more fortunate in the possession of money, from nonresidents as well as residents of the state. Would its beneficent objects be served and justice be promoted by giving nonresident lenders of money an advantage over residents engaged in the same business or by refusing relief to citizens of the state, when the opportunity is presented, against nonresidents on the same terms as against residents? If this court should so hold, it would result that those bent on evading the usury laws, would procure so-called nonresident principals in whose names loans would be made, and the objects of the law would be defeated.
"Section 5281, Rev. Laws 1910, creates a remedy for wrongful death which did not exist at common law, and provides that 'the action must be brought within two years.' Such section, we believe, has not been construed by this court in relation to the tolling of the time, because of absence from the state within which such action may be brought. This identical question was, however, presented and passed upon by the Supreme Court of Minnesota in an able opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Start of that court. Casey v. American Bridge Co., 116 Minn, 461, 134 N.W. 111, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 521.
"The plaintiff in that case brought action against the bridge company on account of the death of her husband, alleged to have resulted from the wrongful act of the defendant while constructing a bridge in Oklahoma. More than two years had elapsed since the death, and the defendant, a corporation, nonresident of Oklahoma, set up the limitation in the section as to time within which the action might be brought as a bar. The court construed the section of our statute which creates the remedy, in connection with section 4660 supra, and held that the limitation was modified by the tolling provisions of section 4660, and that the cause of action was not barred. The court said that the two sections were each parts of our Code of Civil Procedure, but the decision, in the main, hinged on other reason showing that the respective sections were in pari materia. Sections 4660 and 5281, Rev. Laws 1910, are identical with paragraphs 21 and 435, respectively, of the Code of 1893. The court, in rendering the opinion, cited the Code of 1893. We quote as follows:
"'It is true that, where a right of action is given by statute, which did not exist at common law, and the statute giving the right of action also fixes the time within which it may be enforced, such time limit is a condition or limitation upon the right, which will control, no matter in what form the action is brought. Negaubauer v. Great Northern R. Co.,92 Minn. 184, 104 Am. St. Rep. 674, 99 N.W. 620, 2 Ann. Cas. 150. The conclusion, however, that the condition is not qualified by the provisions of section 21, does not logically or otherwise follow from the premises for the conclusion assumes the very question to be decided; that is, whether section 21 qualifies the time limit or condition of section 235.'
"Continuing, the court further says:
"'There is, then, nothing in the language of the respective sections indicating any reason why the tolling provision of section 21 *Page 180 
should not apply to section 435. Why, then, should an exception be added, by construction, to section 21, so as to exclude from its express provision the cause of action given by section 435? Why should not the widow have the same fair opportunity to bring her action for damages sustained by the death of her husband by the wrongful act or neglect of another after the defendant comes into the state as she would have if her cause of action were for the loss of a mule killed by the wrongful act or neglect of another? The fact that the action for the death of her husband is a statutory one, and the action for loss of the mule is a common-law one, does not answer the question, for it relates, not to the creation of the cause of action, but to the construction of the tolling provisions of section 21.'
"Under the admitted facts in this case as to nonresidence and absence, the action was not barred by limitation. This holding would render it unnecessary, so far as a final determination of this appeal is concerned, to decide whether or not the time of the limitation in this case would run from the date of the discharge of the usurious contract, but, as the question is properly raised, and is important, we will consider the same."
                          On Rehearing.