GOLDMAN V. CONWAY COUNTT. 889 �in this State counties are declared to be bodies corporate, with power to contract, and sue and be aued. This carries with it the right, when Bued, to interpose every defence, legal and equitable, whieh it may haTe, including the statute of limitations. Not only are coun- ties and all municipal corporations in this state within the protection afforded by the statute of limitations, but the state as well. �An act passed in 1855 and still in force declares that "lapse of time and statutes of limitations shall apply in suits against the state in like manner as suits against individuals, and may be pleaded and relied on with like effect." Section 5677, Gantt's Digest. This provision clearly indicates a state policy favorable to statutes of repose. �It is not seriously contested that a county may avail itself of this defence generally, but it is said not to be applicable to this class of paper. The force of this argument depends on the legal character- istics of these warrants under the laws of the state where issued. �Where a county is not liable to be sued on such warrants, and can- not be coerced to levy a tax for their payment, the statute probably would not run against them; and the cases of Justices v. Orr, 12 Ga. 137, and Canvll v. Board of Police, 28 Miss. 38, decide this and no more. But it is the settled law of this court that suit may be main- tained on the class of warrants here sued on, and that under sec- tion 10 of article 16 of the constitution of 1874 the county court may by mandamus be compelled to levy a tax, not to exceed the limit prescribed by that section, to pay a judgment recovered thereon. Skirk V, Pulaski County, 4 Dill. 209, and note. �It is also settled that the orders of allowance, in pursuance of whif'h such warrants are issued, have not the force of judicial judg- ments which estop or conclude the county, and that every holder of such paper takes it subject to all defences the county would have against the original payee. Id. They are prima facie evidence of indebtedness, upon which suit may be maintained, and the county coerced to levy a tax to pay them ; and, where this is the law, they stand on the same footing, so far as relates to the statute of limita- tions, as bonds, coupons, or other demands which confessedly fall within the statute. �The warrants are due and payable on the day they are issued, and the statute runs from that date. If construed to be payable on demand, they would be payable at once, and the statute would run from their delivery. Palmer v. Palmer, 36 Mich. 487. When they were presented to the treasurer and indorsed by him, as then required ��� �
