Forcht v. Short
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Fourth District Court. The plaintiffs in error should have brought their action within ninety days from the first day of August, 1866, and, failing so to do, they lost their lien. (Gen. Stat. 1865, p. 883, § 4; 82 Mo. 334 ; Stocking et al. v. Hunt, 3 Denio, 274.) Statutes of limitation act exclusively upon the remedy.
Read the full summary
Error to Fourth District Court. The plaintiffs in error should have brought their action within ninety days from the first day of August, 1866, and, failing so to do, they lost their lien. (Gen. Stat. 1865, p. 883, § 4; 82 Mo. 334 ; Stocking et al. v. Hunt, 3 Denio, 274.) Statutes of limitation act exclusively upon the remedy. (Jackson v. Lam-phire, 3 Pet. 280 ; Rexford v. Knight, 11 N. Y. 308 ; Walte-mire v. Westman, 14 N. Y. 20; Strong v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122 ; Hawkins v. Goold, 11 N. Y. 281.)
1Opinion of the CourtCurrier, Judge
This is a proceeding to enforce a mechanics’ lien. It appears from the record that the account sued on, and which constituted the foundation of the lien/ accrued on and prior to the first day of December, 1865 ; that the lien was filed February 24, 1866 ; and that this suit ivas commenced November 15, 1866, less than nine months after the filing of the lien, and more than ninety days after the General Statutes took effect — that is, more than ninety days after August 1, 1866. By the general law in force prior to August 1, 1866, lienors were allowed nine months after the filing of the lien in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State ex rel. McIlhany v. StewartSupreme Court of Missouri · 1862
- Doellner v. RogersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1852
3Cited by5 opinions
- Kleimann v. GieselmannSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Telanus v. SimpsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1928
- McQuesten v. MorrillWashington Supreme Court · 1895
- Groesbeck v. BargerCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1895
- McConey v. WallaceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886