Town v. Washburn
Supreme Court of Minnesota
On the 18th day of May, 1858, E. B. West made his note, payable ninety days after date, to the order of D, Morrison & Co., a firm composed of D. Morrison, C. 0. Washburn and E. B. Washburn. D. Morrison & Co. endorsed said note by their firm name and transferred it to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
On the 18th day of May, 1858, E. B. West made his note, payable ninety days after date, to the order of D, Morrison & Co., a firm composed of D. Morrison, C. 0. Washburn and E. B. Washburn. D. Morrison & Co. endorsed said note by their firm name and transferred it to the plaintiff. After the lapse of nearly nine years, the plaintiff brought this action in the District Court for Henne-pin county, to recover the amount of said note of said endorsers ; to avoid the statute of limitations, he alleged that said C. C. & E. B. Washburn had been absent from, and residing out of this State more than…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Ootort.-
WilsoN, Ch. J.
We arc of the opinion that the order appealed from should be affirmed. Denny vs. Smith, 18 N. Y, 567, decided under a statute substantially the same as ours, is in point, and we are satisfied with the reasoning and conclusion of the Judge who delivered the opinion of the majority of the Court in that case. See also Dolbear vs. Davidson, 2 Barb. Ch. 477-487; Fannin vs. *271Anderson, 7 Ad. & El. N. Y., 811. Our statute is in these words: Sec. 3, Ch. 66, Gen. Stat. “ Actions can only be commenced within the periods prescribed in this chapter, after the cause of action…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Didier v. DavisonNew York Court of Chancery · 1847
- Whitney v. Reese & HeylinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1866
- Fetz v. C. S. Clark & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1862
3Cited by2 opinions
- Arocena v. SawyerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- Harrison v. McCormickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898