Sec. 1656. Debt Payable Out Of Specific Fund
Description
This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
Sec. 1656. Debt Payable Out Of Specific Fund
The statute does not begin to run against a claim against a public corporation or quasi-corporation,1 such as a city,2 or county,3 or township,4 which is enforceable only out of a particular fund, and not against the corporation generally, until such fund has been provided. If a warrant is issued by a public corporation payable out of a specified fund, limitations does not begin to run against such warrant until the money is in the treasury to the credit of such fund.5 It has been held apparently by some authorities that the proper officer of the corporation must give notice to the creditor of the existence and sufficiency of such fund, in order to start the statute of limitations to running.6 This principle is not, however, limited to public corporations. It applies to all contracts to make a payment out of a specific fund, such as a promise to pay a debt out of the proceeds of certain property,7 or the contract of a building and loan association to pay retiring stockholders out. of funds of a certain class.8 In such cases limitations does not begin to run until the fund from which such payment is to be made comes into existence.
Geach, 26 Nev. 444; 69 Pac. 861; The Victorian, 24 Or. 121; 41 Am. St. Rep. 838; 32 Pac. 1040; Hay v. Peterson, 6 Wyom. 419; 34 L. R. A. 581; 45 Pac. 1073.
2 Graham v. Stanton. 177 Mass. 321; 58 N. E. 1023; Moore v. Black-man, 109 Wis. 528; 85 N. W. 429.
3 Miller v. Cinnamon, 168 111. 447; 48 N. E. 45; reversing 61 111. App. 429.
4 Kahn v. Edwards, 75 Cal. 192; 7 Am. St. Rep. 141; 16 Pac. 779.
5 Ready v. McDonald, 128 Cal. 663; 79 Am. St. Rep. 76; 61 Pac. 272.
6 Schoonover v. Vachon, 121 Ind. 3; 22 N. E. 777; McCay v. McDowell, SO la. 146; 45 N. W. 730; Morrissey v. Faucett, 28 Wash. 52; 68 Pac. 352; Douglass v. Ry., 51 W. Va. 523; 41 S. E. 911; Rowan v. Chenoweth, 49 W. Va. 287; 87 Am. St. Rep. 796; 38 S. E. 544.
7 Rowan v. Chenoweth. 49 W. Va. 287; 87 Am. St. Rep. 796; 38 S. E. 544.
8 Morrissey v. Faucett, 28 Wash. 52; 68 Pac. 352.
9 Douglass v. Ry., 51 W. Va. 523; 41 S. E. 911.
1 New Orleans v. Warner, 175 I". S. 120; Sawyer v. Colgan, 102 Cal. 283; 36 Pac. 580; Davis v. Simpson, 25 Nev. 123; 83 Am. St. Rep. 570; 58 Pac. 146; Brannon v. White Lake Township, - S. D. - ; 95 N. W. 284; Potter v. New Whatcom,
Continue to:
My Books
