Langdon v. Doud
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract upon a promissory note, signed by the defendant, dated September 9, 1854. The writ was dated May 20, 1862. The defence was the statute of limitations. At the trial in the superior court, before Rockwell, J., the plaintiff introduced evidence to show that in March or April 1855, the defendant left this commonwealth and resided in California for about three and one half years.
Read the full summary
Contract upon a promissory note, signed by the defendant, dated September 9, 1854. The writ was dated May 20, 1862. The defence was the statute of limitations. At the trial in the superior court, before Rockwell, J., the plaintiff introduced evidence to show that in March or April 1855, the defendant left this commonwealth and resided in California for about three and one half years. The evidence was conflicting as to the defendant’s purpose in going to California, and his intention to return. The judge instructed the jury that if the defendant in March or April 1855 left Massachusetts and…
1Opinion of the CourtBigelow, C. J.
In the case of Collester v. Hailey, 6 Gray, 517, it was decided that under Rev. Sts. c. 120, § 9, which was reenacted in Gen. Sts. c. 155, § 9, the time of a debtor’s absence from the state without losing his domicil is not to be excluded in computing the period of limitation of an action against him ; in other words, that temporary absences, although extending over consecutive periods of several months, but effecting no change in the legal domicil of the debtor, do not operate to extend the period of limitation, but are to be included in reckoning the time within which an action may be…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hackett v. KendallSupreme Court of Vermont · 1851
- Ford v. BabcockThe Superior Court of New York City · 1849
- Hall v. NasmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1856