Stephens v. St. Louis National Bank
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. The facts appear in the opinion of the court. The provisions of the act of February 15, 1864, do not violate the provisions of art. I, § 10, of the constitution of the United States, nor those of art. XHI,. § 17, R. C. 1855, p. 85, of the constitution of this State. The act is but a statute of limitations, requiring all parties to present their claims within two years or to stand barred.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. The facts appear in the opinion of the court. The provisions of the act of February 15, 1864, do not violate the provisions of art. I, § 10, of the constitution of the United States, nor those of art. XHI,. § 17, R. C. 1855, p. 85, of the constitution of this State. The act is but a statute of limitations, requiring all parties to present their claims within two years or to stand barred. It is not in any way retrospective in its operations; it acts only on the future. All parties h-aving demands against the bank, due at the branch, are allowed two years…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
The plaintiff sued the defendant upon notes issued by the Kirksville Branch of the Bank of St. Louis. The Bank of St. Louis had organized under the act of 1857 (Sess. Acts 1856-7, *388pp. 14-31), and had established a branch at Kirksville. By the act of the Legislature of February 15,1864 (Sess. Acts 1863-4, p. 13), entitled “ An act amendatory of the act to regulate banks and banking institutions,” provisions were made for winding up the branch banks, and section 3 provided that all claims, dues, and demands of said banks not presented within two years should be forever barred, saving the usual…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bronson v. KinzieSupreme Court of the United States · 1843
- McCulloch v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Jackson v. LamphireSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
- Price v. HopkinMichigan Supreme Court · 1865
- Thornton v. TurnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1866
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Ewing v. HoblitzelleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- State v. AbleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- v. MeeksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- State ex rel. Harris v. LaughlinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
- Seibert v. CoppSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.