Court Opinion

ID: 9810460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:50:40.069781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:56.551082
License: Public Domain

Ruffin, J.,
Dissenting. It devolved upon me when this cause was first before the court, to prepare the opinion which is now the subject of review. I am very sure that at that time no one partook of more confidence in the correctness of the conclusion, then arrived at by the whole court, than myself; and I much wish I could concur with my associates in still thinking it to be correct. But the fact is otherwise, and it is but candid in me to say so. Not that my opinion of the law governing the case has undergone a change, but that I failed to impute to the fact that there had been a payment made upon the judgment, that significance which I think it deserves, and which I should then have given to it, if I had correctly apprehended its nature.
In investigating the case, which I endeavored to do thoroughly, it did not escape methat there had been a payment made; but, somehow from the fact of its being on a judgment, I received the impression that it had been involuntarily made, under execution, and could not therefore affect *410the rights of the parties, or the question I was then considering, and so took no note of it.
It turns out, however, to have been voluntarily made, and the question is, whether as such, it has the effect to repel the statute of limitations by virtue of the provision contained in section 51 of the Code, the words of which are correctly cited in the opinion of the Chief Justice. My brethren think it does not, while I think it was intended that it should do so.
I do not regard it as absolutely essential to the successful maintenance of my view of the case, that I should be able to establish the proposition that, as ordinarily understood, a judgment is a contract. Though, as to that matter, notwithstanding some apparent conflict amongst them, I conceive the weight of the authorities, as well as the reason of the law, to be with me.
Both Parson and Chitty, in their works upon Contracts, speak of judgments as coming within the very definition of the term “ contract.” In the former it is said, that “ contracts by specialties are of two sorts — contracts under seal; and contracts of record, such as judgments,” fyc.; and in the latter, that “ contracts, or obligations ex contractu, are of two descriptions, and may be classed with reference to their respective degrees of superiority, as follows : Contracts of record, consisting of judgments,” &c.
In Stuart v. Landers, 16 Cal., 373, the supreme court of that state held, that, under a statute which gave to justices of the peace a jurisdiction over contracts for limited amounts, they had jurisdiction over actions brought upon judgments falling within the amount, and their decision was put expressly upon the ground that a judgment was a contract. And so under our constitution and statute, giving to them the exclusive original jurisdiction of all actions founded on contract, wherein the sum demanded does not exceed two hundred dollars, the justices’ courts have uniformly enter*411tained actions brought upon judgments previously rendered by justices. And I much question whether there is, to-day, a lawyer in the state, who doubts their right to do so, of who believes that such actions could, be brought in any other court.
I am very well aware that there is a series of cases in which it has been held that judgments did not come within the meaning of the statutes, which prescribed a period of limitation to “ actions upon contracts ” merely. But as I catch their import, they proceed, not upon the ground that a judgment is not a contract, but that it is not one in the ordinary acceptation of that term ; and as every statute of limitation is in restraint of rigbt, the courts construe them strictly, and will give them no effect beyond that which the plain-and ordinary signification of their words requires.
Such certainly is the ground-work of the decision in Pease v. Howard, 14 John., 479, which, though not referred to in the opinion of the court, is exactly parallel with the case cited from the Kentucky reports.
This seems to me to be the true ground and one upon which all the cases, though apparently in conflict, may be reconciled. A statute so entirely in derogation of common right as is the statute of limitations, should he strictly construed, and under it a judgment should not be treated as a contract, because it does not come within the necessity of that term. But a statute, such as we are now considering, which dispenses with the limitation imposed upon actions, and is in furtherance of common right, should be so interpreted by the courts, as to give the benefit of its relief to every person and subject, coming within its spirit and the mischief it was intended to remedy.
As I view the case before us, it is not so much a question as to the bare meaning of words, as it is one of intention. And conceding that ordinarily the term “contract” as used in a statute would not apply to a judgment, I still think *412that upon a fair construction ot’ this statute, according to legitimate rules for ascertaining the intention of those who framed it, it should do so in this instance, and indeed that it was so intended.
In construing a statute, the great rule of construction is to ascertain what was the intention of those using the language — to be gathered from the words themselves, taken in connection with the subject matter, and the condition of the law before its adoption.
On tracing the history of the common law in this connection, and of the legislation upon the subject, it will be seen that bonds for the payment of money only, and judgments,have invariably stood upon the same footing together. Originally, and as a bare rule of the courts, they were alike subject to a presumption of satisfaction arising from the great lapse of lime; next, by positive enactment, the period for that presumption to arise was fixed at the end of twenty years; and afterwards, by the act of 1826, at the end of ten years; and at all times and in every stage of the law, they were alike affected by a partial payment upon them, that is to say, such a payment served to rebut the presumption of satisfaction that would otherwise have arisen, as to both forms of indebtedness, and from his having paid part of the debt the courts would presume a willingness on the part of the debtor to pay the whole.
Then again, upon the adoption of the Code of Civil Procedure, the two are made to occupy their same relative positions, being both made subject to an absolute bar at the end of ten years (§ 31); and I can conceive of no reason whj after this there should be a discrimination made between thempwhereby the effect previously attributed to a payment should be preserved as to bonds, and dispensed with as to judgments — thus leaving the latter, the only form of indebtedness known to the law, as to which nothing could repel the bar of the statute.
*413Nor do I conceive that the language of the section referred to demands such an interpretation at the hands of the court On t.h'e contrary, ray brethren seem to me to put an unwarranted restriction upon the last clause of the section, and to construe it as if its words had been written, “ but this section shall not alter the effect of any payment of principal or interest, upon any bond for the payment of money.” Whereas,I take it tobe a general declaration, that thereafter the effect of a payment should be just what it had always been, without regard to the form of the indebtedness to which it applies. It is true, the clause in question is put in immediate juxtaposition with other provisions of the statute that have reference to “ promises” and “ contracts,” but that I would rather attribute to accident, or carelessness in the draftsman, than suspect a purpose on the part of the law-makers, so utterly inconsistent with the whole tenor of legislation upon the subject, and with the admitted policy of the Code in other respects.
It is said in Davidson v. Alexander, 84 N. C., 621, that the effect of the Code is such that in a great measure judgments have ceased to be the mere recorded conclusions of the courts, as to the rights of suitors before them, and are now made to perform many of the functions of mortgages, and to serve as securities for even future and contingent liabilities. Now, if this exposition of the new system be in any degree a correct one, how wide of the mark does it seem to be to say that a judgment is no longer a contract, and how unreasonable appears the supposition that the legislature intended this form of securities, thus designed to act so important a part in the business life of the country, to occupy a footing more hazardous than all others, and that as to them, there should be no stay whatever to the bar wox’ked by the statute of limitations, and this too, when at the very same time a delay in the enforcement of judgments is *414courted, by declaring them to be a lien upon lands, to continue for ten years.
Impressed with these convictions, I have allowed myself greater latitude in construing the statute, so as to attain what I conceived to be the legislative intention, than my associates seem willing to indulge in.
It may be that they are right, and very sure it is that henceforth their decision shall be the law with me, and my only object in expressing my views, at all, has been to call attention to the subject, so that, if deemed necessary, steps may be taken to make the law perfectly free from doubt, one way or the other.
Per Curiam. Affirmed.