Mcclintic V. Dunbar Land Co.: Legal Case Study

The same issue was again before the court in 1945 in McClintic v. Dunbar Land Co. The case involved six notes that were secured by a vendors’ lien. The notes were payable on a sequential, consecutive basis with the first becoming payable on November 26, 1920 and the last on November 26, 1925. The plaintiffs filed the action for non-payment of the notes in 1943. The defendants contended that W. Va. Code § 55-2-5 barred action on the first three notes because more than 20 years had passed.
The Act of 1921 had been amended in 1931 becoming W. Va. Code § 55-2-5, and so the court analyzed the rule again, concluding that no material changes had been made. Like its predecessor, § 55-2-5 was held to be unconstitutional when operating retroactively.
Returning to and mirroring the court’s reasoning in Le Sage, the McClintic court delineated the two aspects at stake with § 55-2-5: the right or obligation and the remedy available under the law. The McClintic court held that because § 55-2-5 invalidated the obligation after 20 years—therefore destroying all material rights under the
Kuhn v. Shreeve was before the court to decide the controversy raised by a $700 mortgage that had been due in 1914. Considering the language of the 1949 amendment to § 55-2-5, the court stated: “for the purpose of this opinion, we can see no substantial difference” between the earlier iterations of the statute and the 1949 revision. The court went on to rule that the action to enforce the 1914 lien was not barred by § 55-2-5. The Legislature’s attempt to solve the problem of old—very old by this time—unreleased liens was thwarted and liens attaching before July 26, 1921 could still be enforced if there was evidence to rebut the presumption of payment. In 1971 § 55-2-5 was amended, but the statute of limitation language wasn’t touched. The pertinent language read as