Court Opinion

ID: 9809138
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:01:55.130637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:25:13.693946
License: Public Domain

Rodman, J.
Dissenting. I concur in the opinion of the 'Court in every respect, except that I think the statute of limitations bars the plaintiff’s recovery. When defendant •received the money from Montel & Bartow, he took what ■was the property of the plaintiff, and the statute began to run from that time. It is immaterial that it had become the property of the plaintiff by an assignment, which -would be recognized as an assignment only in a ■Court of Equity. It passed a legal estate and did not create .a trust.
The defendant took the property tortiously, as between .him and the plaintiff, and held it adversely, as any other ■■trespasser or disseizor does. He did not take it as agent or •trustee for the plaintiff. If he did, every other man who • takes another’s property without his knowledge, takes it as ■his agent or trustee.
In Blount v. Parker, ante, 128, it is held that the fact that -the owner.of the property was ignorant of the trespass, will ’ not prevent the statute from running. The statute of limitations is based upon the opinion that it is better that a just right shall sometimes be lost, than' that claims shall be made after the limes fixed by the statute, which defendants may be unable to disprove, however false. They are statutes ,iof repose.
Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.