Legal Opinion
Bagwell v. McTighe
Tennessee Supreme Court
Decided April 6, 1887PublishedCited by 13 opinions
Appeal in error from Circuit _ Court of Shelby County. J. 0. Pierce, J. Action on a note executed in, and between citizens of, the State of Missouri. The defense is that the note was barred by the statute of limitations of the State of Missouri, during defendant’s residence in that State. Judgment for defendant. Appeal by plaintiff.
1Opinion of the CourtSnodgrass, J.
Bagwell and McTighe both resided in St. Louis, Mo., on the 16th of December, 1874, on which date the latter executed to the former the following note:
“St. Louis, Mo., December 16th, 1874.
“ Sixty days after date I promise to pay to the order of Robt. Bagwell fifty dollars ($50), at American Financial Corporation, for value received, with interest from date at the rate of ten per cent, per annum. J. S. McTighe.”
This note is sued on in this action,' suit having been brought in Shelby County on the 11th February, 1885. The place of payment designated in the note was in St. Louis, Mo.
Plaintiff…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Watkins Ex Rel. Watkins v. WatkinsTennessee Supreme Court · 1929
- Hubble v. Morristown Land Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1895
- Carron v. AbounadorNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1923
- Templeton v. BrownTennessee Supreme Court · 1887
- DeSoto Hardwood Flooring Co. v. Old Dominion Table & Cabinet WorksTennessee Supreme Court · 1931
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.