Corporations—Liability op Stockholder op Bank—Statute of Limitations.—Under section 359 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires that an action to enforce a stockholder’s liability must be brought within three years after the creation of the liability, an action by a depositor in a bank against a stockholder is barred if brought three years after the time the deposit was made.

Id.—Accrual of Liability—Date op Incurring Obligation—Deposit in Bank.—The statute of limitations commences to run at the date of the incurring of the liability of the corporation, that is at the date of the deposit, irrespective of the time when the debt of the corporation becomes due, and at the expiration of three years from such date the statute operates as a bar to any recovery on account thereof based on the claim of stockholders’ liability.

Id.—Stockholder’s Liability—Limitation of Actions—Constitutionality op Statute.—Section 359 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which in effect provides that the liability of stockholders is barred at the expiration of three years from the time the debt of the corporation is contracted, irrespective of the time when the debt becomes due, is not in conflict with section 3 of article XII of the constitution, making each stockholder of a corporation individually responsible for liabilities incurred during the time he is a stockholder.

3d.—Doctrine of Stare Decisis—Statute of Limitations.—After this court has thus construed section 359 of the Code of Civil Procedure for twenty years, it will, under the doctrine of stare decisis, decline to consider the question anew.

3d.—Statute of Limitations—Repugnancy to Constitution.—There is no repugnancy between section 359 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which limits the time for .enforcing the liability of stockholders, and section 3 of article XII of the constitution, which makes a stockholder of a corporation personally liable for obligations incurred while he is a stockholder.

3d.—Action to Enforce Stockholder’s Liability—Jurisdiction of Court—Limitation of Actions—Demurrer.—In an action by a bank depositor, brought in the superior court to enforce the liability of a stockholder of the bank, an order sustaining a demurrer to the whole complaint, without leave to amend, based solely on the ground that the deposits alleged to have been made more than three years prior to the action were barred by the statute of limitations, and the liability of the defendant on the deposits not so barred was less than three hundred dollars, is erroneous.

Id.—Jurisdiction op Superior Court—Amount in Controversy—How Determined.—Whether the superior court has jurisdiction in an action at law, on the ground that the amount in controversy amounts to three hundred dollars, is to be determined by the demand or prayer of the complaint, made in good faith and reasonably supported by the allegations on which it is founded, and if this demand amounts to three hundred dollars, exclusive of interest, such court has jurisdiction of the case for all purposes, entirely regardless of the amount which the plaintiff may finally be held to be entitled to recover. Jurisdiction of the cause attaches at the time of the - commencement of the action, and cannot be divested by the establishment, to the satisfaction of the court, of a defense to the whole or any portion of the claim, whether by demurrer, or by evidence on the trial. Jurisdiction of the cause having attached, the court must give judgment in favor of the plaintiff for such amount as it finds him entitled to recover, even though that amount is less than the amount specified in the constitutional provision as necessary to give the superior court jurisdiction.