Nelson v. Beveridge
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from, Si. Louis Law Commissioner'’ s Court. Action commenced in February, 1854, on a note dated September 23, 1841, payable one day after date. ' The defendant relied upon tbe statute of limitation. At tbe trial, there was evidence tending to show that the defendant suddenly removed from St. Louis, where he had previously resided, in the fall of 1841, and that it was not known to his neighbors where he had gone to.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, Si. Louis Law Commissioner'’ s Court. Action commenced in February, 1854, on a note dated September 23, 1841, payable one day after date. ' The defendant relied upon tbe statute of limitation. At tbe trial, there was evidence tending to show that the defendant suddenly removed from St. Louis, where he had previously resided, in the fall of 1841, and that it was not known to his neighbors where he had gone to. On the other hand, there was evidence tending to show that his removal was open, that he went to Palmyra, in this state, and that it was generally known among the neighbors…
1Opinion of the CourtLeonard, Judge
The note sued upon was given 23d of September, 1841, payable one day after date, and the maker, it is alleged, subsequently in October of the same year, absented himself so as to bring himself within the 8th section of the 3d article of the present revised statute of limitations, corresponding with the 8th section of the same statute in the revised code of 1835. The court below holding that the case was regulated by the act of 1835, (the cause of action having accrued before the passage of the present statute,) deckled that the statute, having commenced running before the obstruction existed,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ormsby v. LetcherCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1814
3Cited by2 opinions
- Cook's v. HolmesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1859
- Rhoton v. MendenhallOregon Supreme Court · 1888