Whittelsey v. Robert
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from, Jefferson Gireuit Court. The mere fact that defendant may have visited this state for a short time without changing his residence, did not in any sense affect the operation of the Statute of Limitations.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, Jefferson Gireuit Court. The mere fact that defendant may have visited this state for a short time without changing his residence, did not in any sense affect the operation of the Statute of Limitations. By the statutes of 1845, 55, 65, if the debtor was a nonresident of this state when the cause of action accrued, the statute began to run in his favor at once, and as nothing stops its operation when once it begins, the action of‘course would be barred at the expiration of the statutory limitation for commencing an action. (R. C. 1845, p. 717, sec. 7; R. O. 1855, p. 1049, § 12;…
1Opinion of the Court
Adams, Judge,
delivered tire opinion of the court.
This was a suit for professional services as attorney at law, rendered by plaintiff, and for moneys paid between the years 1850 and 1860.
The only point relied on here is the statute of limitations, which was set up in the answer. The plaintiff replied that the defendant came into this State in June 1855, and departed from this State and resided out of the State ever since.
It was in proof that the defendant was a resident of Minnesota and never has resided in this State; but that he came to this State in June 1855, and after remaining a short…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Thomas v. BlackSupreme Court of Missouri · 1856
- Cook's v. HolmesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1859
3Cited by3 opinions
- Gibson v. SimmonsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1908
- Orr v. WilmarthSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- Sheehan & Loler Transportation Co. v. SimsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889