Frey v. Aultman, Miller & Co.
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from McPherson District Court. Action brought by Aultman, Miller & Co. against Frey, -upon a promissory note. January 11, 1883, the plaintiffs had judgment for $160.25 and costs, against defendant, who ■brings the case to this court. The facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Brewer, J.:
The single question in this case is as to the meaning of the word “conceal” as it is used in §21 of the •code of civil procedure. The district court found that the plaintiff in error, defendant below, had concealed himself •so as to suspend the running of the statute of limitations. The undisputed facts are, that the note sued on was dated •September 13, 1869, and became due November 1, 1871, This action was begun March 16, 1882, more than ten years ■after the maturity of the note. At the time of the execution •of the note, defendant was a…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Cole v. . JessupNew York Court of Appeals · 1854
- Hoggett v. EmersonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1871
- White v. BaileyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
3Cited by7 opinions
- Underhill v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2007
- Johnson v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1982
- Myers v. CenterSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891
- Rhoton v. MendenhallOregon Supreme Court · 1888
- Talcott v. BennettNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.