Rhodes v. Farish
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Thayer, J. The debtor need not abandon his domicile, but it is sufficient if he is beyond the reach of service of ordinary process, the statute is thereby interrupted. — Johnson v. Smith, 43 Mo. 499; Venuci v. Cademartori, 59 Mo. 352; Garth v. Robards, 20 Mo. 524; Miller v. Tyler, 61 Mo. 402.
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
On the 9th of December, 1882, the plaintiff exhibited for allowance against the estate of Wharton T. LaBaume, deceased, the following due bill:—
“ Due Emerson Rhodes, three hundred and seventy-five gold, which I promise to pay on the first day of November, eighteen hundred and seventy-one.
“ W. T. LaBaume.
“June 13, 1871.”
The evidence shows, without contradiction, that the signature to this due bill was that of the deceased. It is admitted that when it became due the premium on gold was eleven and seven-eighths per cent.
The only defence was the statute of limitations. It will be perceived that…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Johnson v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- Cook's v. HolmesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1859
- Ex parte WinnardTexas Supreme Court · 1864
- Tiller v. AbernathySupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
- Venuci v. CademartoriSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Haver v. BassettMissouri Court of Appeals · 1956
- Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Md. v. BoundyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1942
- State ex rel. Shipman v. AllenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
- Sheehan & Loler Transportation Co. v. SimsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- State ex rel. Shipman v. AllenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.