Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Sheahan
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Error from County Court, Canadian County; H. L. Fogg, Judge. Action by the Fidelity & Deposit Company against W. A. Sheahan. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
SHARP, C.
The question presented for our consideration is one of limitations. The note sued on was executed at Peoria, Ill., October 5, 1897, and was payable one year after date. Action to recover judgment was begun October 7, 1909, in the county court of Canadian county. The defendant pleaded the Illinois statute of limitations, which provides that actions on promissory notes shall be commenced within ten years after the cause of action shall have accrued. The plaintiff replied, setting up another provision of the Illinois statute of limitations, which follows:
“If, when the cause of…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- De Meli v. . De MeliNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Barney v. OelrichsSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Hanson v. GrahamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Huss v. Central Railroad & Banking Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1880
- Penfield v. Chesapeake, Ohio & South Western RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Wapa Oil & Development Co. v. McBrideSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
- Pope v. PopeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926
- Jones v. ReserSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916