Boyce v. Christy
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Fourth District Court. I. This action was not brought until five years and six months had elapsed after Boyce arrived at the age of twenty-one years. Within two years from that time he could have sued, but not after that time. The law expressly forbids it. It is positively prohibitory. (Wagn. Stat., tit. “ Apprentices,” §§ 11-17.) II. The finding for plaintiff was irregular, and the judgment should have been arrested and a new trial granted.
Read the full summary
Error to Fourth District Court. I. This action was not brought until five years and six months had elapsed after Boyce arrived at the age of twenty-one years. Within two years from that time he could have sued, but not after that time. The law expressly forbids it. It is positively prohibitory. (Wagn. Stat., tit. “ Apprentices,” §§ 11-17.) II. The finding for plaintiff was irregular, and the judgment should have been arrested and a new trial granted. (Fenwick v. Logan, 1 Mo. 401 ; Hickman v. Bird, id. 495; Mooney v. Kennett, 19 Mo. 551; Clark’s Adm’r v. Hann. & St. Jo, R.R., 36 Mo. 215; Pitts…
1Opinion of the CourtBliss, Judge
The plaintiff, formerly an apprentice of defendant, some six years after he had arrived at majority, brought suit upon the indenture. The statute only allows such suits to be brought within two years after the apprentice comes of age, and for that reason the petition was demurrable; for it is well settled that w'hen the statute creates a bar by lapse of time, and the petition shows that the time has elapsed, the defense may be made by demurrer. (State v. Bird, 22 Mo. 470; McNair v. Lott, 25 Mo. 182; Van Hook v. Whitlock, 7 Paige, 373.) But the defendant failed to avail himself of the statute,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Clark's v. HannibalSupreme Court of Missouri · 1865
- Mooney v. KennettSupreme Court of Missouri · 1854
- Howard v. ClarkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- Pitts v. FugateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
- State ex rel. Collins v. DulleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Burrus v. CookSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- City of St. Charles v. StookeyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1907
- Henoch v. ChaneySupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- St. Louis Gas-Light Co. v. City of St. LouisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1881
- Adams v. TuckerColorado Court of Appeals · 1895
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.