Amy v. Dubuque, 98 U.S. 470

^°n^S which they were annexed. Judgment is e or the several instalments of interest, with interest on teCfl ln^a^men^ fr°m the time it became due. The city contation aC^°n *8 h^rred by the Iowa Statute of Limis- n that view the circuit judge concurred, and judgment was rendered for the city. * code of Iowa declares that actions “ founded on written p. 472contracts ” may be brought within ten years “ after their causes accrue, and not afterwards.” Code of 1873, sect. 2529. Such had been the law of that State for many years prior to the adoption of the code of 1873. We find the same provision in the code of 1851. Code of 1851, sect. 1659. What actions are founded on written contracts, and when causes of action accrue, within the meaning of the Iowa code, may be gathered from decisions of the Supreme Court of that State. The earliest decision to which we are referred is Bahr v. Arndt, 9 Iowa, 39. That was the case of a mortgage executed to secure a note payable ten years after date, with interest, at the rate of ten per cent per annum from date, payable annually. The court held that a foreclosure could be had before the maturity of the note for an instalment of interest due. In Mann v. Cron (9 id. 327), which was a suit to foreclose a mortgage, given to secure a note bearing ten per cent interest, payable annually, the court said: “Was he [the mortgagee] entitled to six per cent interest upon the interest annually due? We think he was. The respondent was under a legal obligation to pay this interest at the end of the year; it was a sum of money then due, without a contract fixing the rate of interest upon it, and for which he might have been sued. He was, therefore, bound to pay its legal value, which by our law, in the absence of a written agreement reserving more, is fixed at six cents on the hundred.” Hershey v. Hershey (18 id. 2 ) was the case of a written agreement to purchase an interest m mill property at a valuation by appraisers, and “ to pay t e principal sum of such purchase on or before five years from the date of the appraisement, and in the mean time to pay in terest for the full sum at the rate of seven per cent per annum, the interest to be paid semi-annually.” It was held that an action at law could be maintained for any unpaid semi-annua instalment of interest. Said the court: “ The payment of in terest periodically is expressly stipulated for, and for a breae of this contract plaintiff may recover, just as clearly as foi non-payment of an instalment of principal. By their ment the parties have made this interest, when it matures, n simply an incident of the debt, but pro tanto the debt its And plaintiff was not, therefore, bound to wait the expira p. 473of the five years from the date of the award to recover for the semi-annual instalment of interest.” The court said further: “The plaintiff sues at law for the interest precisely as if he had separate notes for the same, and as he might do in case of an ordinary bond.” To the same general effect is Preston v. Walker, 26 id. 205. In the subsequent case of Baker n. Johnson County (33 id. 151), the inquiry arose as to the time when limitation commenced to run upon a contract whereby Baker was employed to render services in behalf of the county in connection with its claim against the general government for swamp-land money and land scrip. The court held that Baker had a right of action from the date when his services were completed, and that his cause of action accrued at that date. Callanan v. The County of Madison (45 id. 561) was an action to recover back taxes which had been improperly exacted. The defence of limitation being interposed, the court said that “ the cause of action accrues at the very moment of payment of the taxes, if at that time the tax was erroneous or illegal. The right of the plaintiff and the liability of the county do not depend upon the future acts to be done or suffered by either; their relation as creditor and debtor is fixed by the illegality of the tax.”

ruff, 92 U. S. 502. This court has also had occasion to p. 474consider the question as to when, upon principle, limitation commences to run. In TRZcoa? v. Plummer's Executors (4 Pet. 172), it was said: “ The ground of action here is a contract to act diligently and skilfully; and both the contract and the breach of it admit of a definite assignment of date. When might this action have been instituted is the question ; for from that time the statute must run.” Angell, Limitations, sect. 42; 2 Saunders, Pl. and Evid. 309.

The case of Clark v. Iowa City arose under the same Statute of Limitations which is invoked by the city of Dubuque for its protection in this case. It is cited by counsel for plaintiff in error in support of the proposition that limitation, under the Iowa statute, does not commence to run against a coupon until it is detached from the bond. There are some expressions in the opinion in that case which, standing alone, would seem to sustain that construction of the statute. But it is quite obvi ous, from the whole opinion, that the conclusion reached, upon the point necessary to be decided, did not rest upon the isolated fact that the coupons sued on had become severed from the bond. It did rest, mainly, upon the ground that the coupons sued on were specialties, separate written contracts, capable of supporting actions after their maturity, without reference to the maturity or ownership of the bonds. We distinctly held that all statutes of limitation begin to run when the right of action is complete. We said: “ Every consideration, therefore, which gives efficacy to the Statute of Limitations, when applied to actions on the bonds after their maturity, equally requires that similar limitations should be applied to actions upon the coupons after their maturity.” Our answer to the specific question certified to us was, “ that the statute of Iowa, which extends the same limitations to actions on all written contracts, sea ed or. unsealed, began to run against the coupons in suit om their respective maturities.” So far, then, as that case ears upon the defence of the city, it is an express authority or t e position that the limitation of ten years prescribed by Th 8^U^e aPPH- equally to bonds and their coupons. . e on y material respect in which this case differs from that, th C0uP0ns in suit here have never been severed from th t °n S’ an^ are held by the owner of the latter, while in ase t. ey were severed from bonds which had been prey paid off. But this difference cannot logically, or in p. 476view of the Iowa decisions, affect the construction of the statute under examination. The right of the plaintiff in error to sue upon the coupons was complete after their non-payment at maturity, whether they had been previously severed or not from the bond. Upon principle, his failure or neglect to detach the coupon and present it for payment at the time when, by contract, he was entitled to demand payment, could not prevent the statute from running from that date. Such a construction of the statute would defeat its manifest purpose, which was to prevent the institution of actions founded upon written contracts after the expiration of ten years, without suit, from the time “their causes accrue; ” that is, from the time the right to sue for a breach attaches. We adhere, therefore, to our decision in Clark v. Iowa City^ that the Statute of Limitations began to run, under the Iowa statute, from the time the coupons respectively matured.

, 8that no persons except those mentioned, and o cers, agents, and employés of the government as might onzed to enter upon Indian reservations in discharge of p. 478duties enjoined by law, should ever be permitted “ to pass over, settle upon, or reside ” in the territory reserved, and the Indians relinquishing their title to any other territory within the United States. 15 id. 674, art. 2. No assent was given by this treaty that the territory constituting the reservation should be brought under the jurisdiction, or be included within the limits, of Idaho. Any implication even of such an assent is negatived by the terms in which the reservation is made, and it is not pretended that any such assent has been signified to the President. The territory reserved, therefore, was as much beyond the jurisdiction, legislative or judicial, of the government of Idaho, as if it had been set apart within the limits of another country, or of a foreign State. Its lines marked the bounds of that government. The process of one of its courts, consequently, served beyond those lines, could not impose upon the defendant any obligation of obedience, and its disregard could not entail upon him any penalties. The service was an unlawful act of the sheriff. The court below should, therefore, have set it aside on its attention being called to the fact that it was made upon the defendant on the reservation. The motion was to dismiss the action; but it was argued as a motion to set aside the service; and we treat it as having only that extent. The code of Idaho considers an action as commenced when the complaint is filed, and provides that a summons may be issue within one year afterwards. Had the defendant been found in Idaho outside the limits of the Indian reservation, he might during that period have been served with process.