Law reviews.

- For article, "Statutes of Limitations: Counterproductive Complexities," see 37 Mercer L. Rev. 1 (1985).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

This section changed common-law rule enunciated in Brinsfield v. Carter, 2 Ga. 143 (1847), and must be strictly construed. Georgia R.R. & Banking v. Wright, 124 Ga. 496, 53 S.E. 251 (1906), rev'd on other grounds, 207 U.S. 127, 28 S. Ct. 47, 52 L. Ed. 134 (1907).

Effect of section on legislative powers.

- Legislative powers, including granting of a license by a municipality, cannot be abridged by this section. City Council v. Burum & Co., 93 Ga. 68, 19 S.E. 820, 26 L.R.A. 340 (1893).

Prescription does not run against state. Kirschner v. Western & A.R.R., 67 Ga. 760 (1881); Dean v. Feely, 69 Ga. 804 (1883).

This section applies to counties. MacNeill v. McElroy, 193 Ga. 55, 17 S.E.2d 169 (1941).

Action to recover money illegally drawn from treasury.

- Former Civil Code 1910, § 4371 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-3-1) rendered former Civil Code 1910, § 4362 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-3-25) applicable to action by county to recover money illegally drawn from the treasury. Swords v. Walker, 141 Ga. 450, 81 S.E. 235 (1914).

In action brought by county to recover fees paid to probate court judge by mutual mistake, this section applies. McAlpin v. Chatham County, 26 Ga. App. 695, 107 S.E. 74 (1921).

Payday lending litigation governed by statute of limitations.

- Supreme Court of Georgia is not persuaded that the Georgia legislature intended the period of limitation for bringing an enforcement action pursuant to the Payday Lending Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-17-1 et seq., to be governed by the one-year limitation period for forfeiture actions pursuant to the usury laws; instead, the Court concludes the remedies set forth in the Payday Lending Act are governed by the 20-year statute of limitation set forth in O.C.G.A. § 9-3-1. W. Sky Fin., LLC v. State of Ga. ex rel. Olens, 300 Ga. 340, 793 S.E.2d 357 (2016).

Cited in Wooten v. State ex rel. Bagby, 118 Ga. App. 366, 163 S.E.2d 870 (1968).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 51 Am. Jur. 2d, Limitation of Actions, § 85.

C.J.S.

- 54 C.J.S., Limitations of Actions, §§ 31, 55.

ALR.

- Statute limiting duration of lien, or life, of judgment, or revival thereof, as applicable to judgment in favor of state or political units thereof, 118 A.L.R. 929.

Liquidation or other proceeding by government against bank or other corporation, as suspending statute of limitations as regards choses in action belonging to corporation, or stockholder's superadded liability, 122 A.L.R. 945.

When statute of limitation commences to run against action to recover tax, 131 A.L.R. 822.

Running of limitation as to action by public body against officer or employee as deferred until defendant ceases to be officer or employee, or until the end of his term of office or employment, 137 A.L.R. 674.

Limitation applicable to action for consequential damage as result of taking or damaging of property for public use, 139 A.L.R. 1288.

Limitation of time for collection or enforcement of succession, estate, or inheritance tax, 139 A.L.R. 1397.

Limitation statute applicable to action on bonds of public body or on obligation to collect revenues for their payment, 38 A.L.R.2d 930.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 9-3-1

Total Results: 5 | Sort by: Relevance | Newest First

Copy

W. Sky Fin., LLC v. State, 300 Ga. 340 (Ga. 2016).

Cited 17 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 31, 2016 | 793 S.E.2d 357

...ants and Proposed Defendants. That statute states, in pertinent part: “All actions for the enforcement of rights accruing to individuals under statutes . . . shall be brought within 20 years after the right of action has accrued...Pursuant to OCGA § 9-3-1, the State’s claims in this case are governed by the same limitations as those that apply to private persons.24 “Where the statute of limitations has not run as to a theory of recovery, an amendment allowing joinder of an additional part...

...2 94 Ga. 530, 538 (2) (757 SE2d 20) (2014). Specifically, the amended complaint alleged that within days after Western Sky funded a loan, borrowers were notified the loan had been sold to WS Funding and that it would be serviced by CashCall. OCGA § 9-3-1 states: “Except as otherwise provided by law, the state shall be barred from bringing an action if, under the same circumstances, a private person would be barred.” Defendants note that OCGA § 16-17-1 (c) declares the types of loans covered by the Act to be those in violation of OCGA § 7-4-2. 42 Ga....

Copy