Legal Opinion

Murphy v. Phelps

Montana Supreme Court

Decided October 4, 1892PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Appeal from Eighth Judicial District, Cascadle Cowrvty, Action upon a promissory note; tried before Benton, J. Plaintiff had judgment below.

1Opinion of the Court

Harwood, J.—

Plaintiff’s action is founded upon a promissory note, dated September 4, 1884, and the action to enforce payment thereof was not commenced within the period of six years from said date. It is conceded that the action would be barred by the Statute of Limitations if no payment was made on the note to bring the claim within the period of limitation prescribed (Code Civ. Proc. § 54); but plaintiff maintains that a payment of $90.30 was made thereon December 6, 1888.

The first point raised by appellant is that the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Orr v. HaskellMontana Supreme Court · 1874
  2. Hogan v. ShuartMontana Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Palmer v. ArthurSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  4. Sweeney v. Great Falls & Canada Railway Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1892
  5. Quirk v. ClarkMontana Supreme Court · 1887

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Stephens v. ConleyMontana Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Hamilton v. Great Falls Street Railway Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Christiansen v. AldrichMontana Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Hawkins v. DonnerbergOregon Supreme Court · 1901
  5. Welcher v. HoustonMontana Supreme Court · 1924

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API