Doughty v. Funk
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Error from the District Court of Kingfisher County; before C. F. Irwin, Trial Judge.
1Opinion of the Court
Gillette, J.:
The only question presented for determination in this case is dependent for its determination upon the construction to be given to the limitation laws of this Territory.
The action is brought to recover upon a promissory note dated at Peabody, Kansas, June 1, 1886, payable to Shupe, Tresler & Larke at Philadelphia, Pa., five years after date. Before the maturity of the note the defendant, maker of the note, removed from Kansas to the state of Nebraska, where he resided when the note matured and -until the statute of limitations of that state had barred a recovery on the instrument…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Patterson v. . PattersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Luce v. ClarkeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Steele v. Commissioners of RutherfordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1874
- Osgood v. ArttDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1882
- Powers Mercantile Co. v. BlethenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
3Cited by17 opinions
- McKee v. DoddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Bruner v. MartinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1907
- Western Coal & Mining Co. v. HilvertArizona Supreme Court · 1945
- Cuero Cotton Oil & Mfg. Co. v. Feeders' Supply Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1918
- Spiller v. St. Louis & S. F. R.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1926
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.