Weille v. A. G. Levy & Co.
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of Jefferson county. The opinion states the case. The visits of the appellant to this state were not furtive or brief, but open, notorious and long-continued. Pindell v. Harris, 57 Miss., 739. The appellees also rely on Pvudell v. Harris, 57 Miss., 739, in which the court clearly sets out the scope and meaning of the statute.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of Jefferson county. The opinion states the case. The visits of the appellant to this state were not furtive or brief, but open, notorious and long-continued. Pindell v. Harris, 57 Miss., 739. The appellees also rely on Pvudell v. Harris, 57 Miss., 739, in which the court clearly sets out the scope and meaning of the statute. The appellant was a traveling salesman, without any definite route or fixed appointment, who stopped only a day or two at each place. His occasional visits to the state, under such circumstances, should not be included in the time covered by his…
1Opinion of the CourtCooper, C. J.
The single question presented by this appeal is, whether the appellant ivas £ £ absent from and resided out of this state ’ ’ during such part of the time covered by his plea of the statute of *35limitations as will preclude him from the benefit of the statute. The statute pleaded is that of three years. The facts are that less than two years after the right to sue had arisen the defendant removed from this state to Paducah, Ky., where he has since resided, but has pursued the business of a traveling-salesman in the states of Mississippi and Louisiana, and, while so engaged, has been, from time…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pindell v. HarrisMississippi Supreme Court · 1880
3Cited by2 opinions
- Baxter v. KrauseSupreme Court of Kansas · 1909
- Fort Collins National Bank v. StrachanNebraska Supreme Court · 1918