Reinhold v. Kerrigan
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Horatio D. Wood, Judge. (1) The act of 1895 did not have any retrospective effect, and hence the judgment sued upon so far from being barred at tbe time tbe suit was brought had about eleven years longer to run.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Horatio D. Wood, Judge. (1) The act of 1895 did not have any retrospective effect, and hence the judgment sued upon so far from being barred at tbe time tbe suit was brought had about eleven years longer to run. Cranor v. School District, 52 S. W. Rep. 232; Weber v. Manning, 4 Mo. 229; Riggs v. Goodrich, 74 Mo. 108. (2) If plaintiff himself had made the agreement of compromise he might still recover the difference between the amount actually due him and what was paid under the supposed settlement. The amount was fixed by judgment and could…
1Opinion of the CourtBiggs, J.
— This action was brought before a justice of the peace on March 24, 1898. It is based on a judgment rendered in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis on May 19, 1884. On a trial de novo in the circuit court the cause was submitted to the court, a jury having been waived. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations and payment in bar of the action. The circuit court rendered a judgment against the defendant for $316.48, from which he has appealed.
The plea of the statute of limitations must be decided against the defendant. When the original judgment was rendered (1884) the statute…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cranor v. School District No. 2 of Township No. 62 of Range No. 82Supreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Henson v. SteverMissouri Court of Appeals · 1897