Craig v. Callaway County Court
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL FROM CALLAWAY CIRCUIT COURT. 1st. The bond having been made payable to the present plaintiffs in their official capacity, suit should have been commenced in the name of the present justices of the county court. 2d. In order to take a case out of the statute of limitations, there must be such a promise, coupled with the original consideration, would create a new and subsisting debt. 6 Mo. Rep. p. 21. 3d.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM CALLAWAY CIRCUIT COURT. 1st. The bond having been made payable to the present plaintiffs in their official capacity, suit should have been commenced in the name of the present justices of the county court. 2d. In order to take a case out of the statute of limitations, there must be such a promise, coupled with the original consideration, would create a new and subsisting debt. 6 Mo. Rep. p. 21. 3d. The promise or undertaking of one of two joint obligors, will not take the case out of the statute of limitations as to the other. Hathaway vs. Haskel, 9 Pick. R. 42; Exetor Bank vs.…
1Opinion of the Court
Scott, judge,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This was a suit begun before a justice of the peace on a bond executed by N. Craig and Daniel Nolly as sureties for John H. Cook, payable to the justices of the county court for Callaway by their names, and for the use of the county. The suit was brought in the names of the surviving justices to whom the bond was given. These justices were not in office at the beginning of the suit. The defence was the statute of limitation. To repel the bar of the statute D. Nolly, the co* security, and who was no party to the suit, and the treasurer of the…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Regan v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- Maddox v. DuncanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
- Cowhick v. ShingleWyoming Supreme Court · 1894
- Block v. DormanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Shannon v. AustinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.