Bridge v. Tierman
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The court erred manifestly in giving judgment for the plaintiffs below after it had continued the cause, no motion being made to set aside the continuance. II.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The court erred manifestly in giving judgment for the plaintiffs below after it had continued the cause, no motion being made to set aside the continuance. II. The answer of the defendant below stated a good defence to the prosecution of the action; for, although it is true that a covenant not to sue for a limited time has been held not to constitute a bar, yet there is no reason to say that such a covenant cannot be pleaded in abatement, to an action brought within the time named in t-he covenant. (Clopper’s Adm’r v. The Union Bank, 7 Harris & Johnson,…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
In Atwood v. Lewis (6 Mo. 392) and Bircher v. Payne (7 Mo. 402) this court decided that where a person gives his promissory note payable at a certain time, and the payee 'ex-excutes an instrument of writing that at the maturity of the note, on the happening of certain contingencies, he will extend the time of payment and forbear the collection of the money, that the happening of the events or contingencies mentioned in the writing will be no defence to the prosecution of a suit founded on the note; but that if the defendant is injured by the breach of covenant, he must resort to his action…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Atwood v. LewisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1840
- Maupin v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1842
3Cited by8 opinions
- Adams v. First Nat. Bank of WacoCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
- Barton v. Farmers' State BankTexas Commission of Appeals · 1925
- Hosea v. RowleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Rucker v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
- Farmers & Traders Bank v. LairdMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.