888 rocsBA.!! SBPO&TBa. �ties due opportunity to be heard. On the present motion the court must act from the evidencu t^efore it, which, il true, yiiowa a tcaudu- lent judgment. �Motion sustained. �McCsABY, G. J., concurs. ���Goldman v. Conway Countt. �{Uireuit Court, E. D. Arkanaa». October Ternii 1881 ) �1. CoDNTT Indkbtbdnbbs— Wheii Statutb OB' Limitations Bechns to Rnw. �Where a county may be sued on Us ordinar? warrants and compelled by man- damus to leyy a tax to pay them, tjtte statute of limitations begins to run against such warrants from the date of their issue. �The plaintiffs' cause of action is ordinary county warrants, in the form pfescribed by statute, issued before the thirtieth day of Octo- ber, 1874, and presented to the county treasurer for payment, and by him indorsed "not paid for want of f unds, " more than five years be- fore the commencement of this suit. The statute of limitations of this state declares that "actions on promissory notes and other in- struments in writing," and all actions not speoifically named in the act, shall be barred in five years after the cause of action accrued. Gantt's Digest, §§ 4125, 4129. The county pleaded the statute of lim- itations in bar of the action. The plaintififs demurred to the plea. �Clark e Williams, for plaintiffs. �John Fletcher, for defendant. �Caldwell, D. J. It is well settled that counties may plead the statute of limitations to actions founded on contracts and unliquidated demands. Dillon, Mun. Corp. § 533; Baker v. Johnson Go. 33 lowa, 151. Such a plea may be interposed by a city to an action upon its notes. De Cordova v. Galveston, 4 Tex. 470. And in Louisiana it is held to be a good plea to an action on warrants issued by the police jury of the parish, which are analogous to, if not identical with, our county warrants. Perry v. Parish of Vermilion, 21 La. Ann. 645. And the statute begins to run against interest coupons attached to negotiable bonds, issued by municipal corporations, from the time they mature, although they remain attached to the bond which repre- eents the principal debt. Amy v. Duhu<iue, 9S U. S. 470. ��� �
