Stockton v. Teasdale
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Son. Moses N. Sale, Judge. The notes and deed of trust in controversy were dated October 19,1887. The principal note matured October 19, 1888. An action on the note itself was not barred by limitation until October 19, 1898. The Act of February 18,1891 (Laws of Missouri, 1891, p. 184, now sections 4276 and 4277, R. S. 1899), does not apply to this case, because the notes secured by the deed of trust were not barred by limitation…
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Son. Moses N. Sale, Judge. The notes and deed of trust in controversy were dated October 19,1887. The principal note matured October 19, 1888. An action on the note itself was not barred by limitation until October 19, 1898. The Act of February 18,1891 (Laws of Missouri, 1891, p. 184, now sections 4276 and 4277, R. S. 1899), does not apply to this case, because the notes secured by the deed of trust were not barred by limitation prior to the passage of that act nor did they become barred at any time during two years after its passage. Stanton v.…
1Opinion of the Court
BLAND, P. J.,
(after stating the facts). — Prior to 1891, we had this unscientific and incongruous state of the law in respect to the limitation of actions on money obligations and actions to foreclose mortgages given to secure such obligations. By statute, the right to sue on the obligation was barred in ten years from the date of its maturity, while the right of action to foreclose the mortgage was not barred until twenty years after the maturity of the obligation it was given to! secure, unless the mortgagor or his assigns, after the maturity of the debt, had for ten years held possession…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hargadine v. HendersonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- Stanton v. GibbinsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
3Cited by2 opinions
- Martin v. TeasdaleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- Hower v. ErwinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1909