It cannot be that the statute of limitations will be allowed to commence to run against a right until that right has accrued in a shape to be effectually enforced.
The estate of the testator was probated in California, where the estate was situated. The testator's most recent domicile was in Minnesota. The creditor filed a bill in equity in a Minnesota circuit court against the administrator to enforce payment of a judgment rendered against the testator. The circuit court ruled in favor of the creditor. On appeal, the Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court.
Was the bill filed in Minnesota barred by the statute of limitations due to an original judgment rendered on April 19, 1872?
The Court held that the relief prayed for by the bill and awarded by the circuit court was not barred by proceedings of the probate court in California because the orders of the probate court were merely ancillary to the primary administration of the testator's domicile of Minnesota. The Court also held that the relief sought was not barred by the Minnesota statute of limitations because the bill was filed within 12 months from the time the claim was established. For the purpose of a statute of limitations the date of the entry of a judgment nunc pro tunc is the date of the order of such entry, and not the day as of which the judgment is ordered to take effect. The date of that entry is by a fiction of law made and considered to be the true date of the judgment for one purpose only, and that is to bind the defendant by the obligation of the judgment entered as of a date when he was in full life; but the right of the complainant in this bill to enforce that judgment by the present proceeding certainly did not begin until after the judgment in that form was actually entered.