Mastin v. Tilleston
Missouri Court of Appeals
Error to the Jachson Circuit Court. — Hon. Turner A. GrILL, Judge. The right of action upon the note sued upon accrued on the twenty-third day of January, 1869, and was consequently barred by section 3229, Revised Statutes ; unless it was saved by the exception created by section 3236, Revised Statutes. The exception created by the latter section is limited to those cases where the defendant is a resident of the state at the time the cause of action accrues.
Read the full summary
Error to the Jachson Circuit Court. — Hon. Turner A. GrILL, Judge. The right of action upon the note sued upon accrued on the twenty-third day of January, 1869, and was consequently barred by section 3229, Revised Statutes ; unless it was saved by the exception created by section 3236, Revised Statutes. The exception created by the latter section is limited to those cases where the defendant is a resident of the state at the time the cause of action accrues. Orr v. Wilmarth, 95 Mo. 212. The defendant Tilleston was not a resident of the state when the right of action accrued, and did not…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
This was an action on a promissory note for three hundred and forty-two dollars and ten cents, dated December 26,1868, and due ninety days after date, made payable at the banking-house of John J. Mastín & Co. in Kansas City, Mo. The answer was that the action was barred by the ten-years statute of limitations. The reply was that the defendant had departed from this state one year after the note sued on became due and had remained outside of the state till within one year before the filing of this suit. At the trial there was evidence showing pretty conclusively that the defendant, at the time…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Orr v. WilmarthSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. WebbMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Mathews v. AppleberryMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894