Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bridges v. Stephens

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided March 3, 1896Published

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. D. D. Eisher, Judge. (1) The circuit court erred in declaring the law to be that the appellant was not entitled to recover, because the promise and agreement of the respondent not to plead the statute of limitation was not made in writing. It was not necessary that the promise or agreement should be in writing. 1 Wood on Limitations [2 Ed.], sec. 76, pp. 228, 229; 2 Herman on Estoppel and Res.

Read the full summary

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. D. D. Eisher, Judge. (1) The circuit court erred in declaring the law to be that the appellant was not entitled to recover, because the promise and agreement of the respondent not to plead the statute of limitation was not made in writing. It was not necessary that the promise or agreement should be in writing. 1 Wood on Limitations [2 Ed.], sec. 76, pp. 228, 229; 2 Herman on Estoppel and Res. Adj., sec. 825, pp. 955, 956; North v. Walker, 2 Mo. App. 174; s. c., 66 Mo. 453; County .of Vernon‘V. Stewart, 64 Mo. 411; Wright v. Pratt, 17 Mo. 43;…

1DissentBurgess, J.

{dissenting). — Finding myself unable to concur in the majority opinion of the court, I deem it not improper to give my reasons for my nonconcurrence.

The suit is against the defendant in his official capacity as receiver of the Fifth National Bank of St. Louis, he having been duly appointed to that position by the comptroller of the currency of the United States, under the national banking act, 13 Statutes at Large, p. 99. While it is said in Case v. Terrell, 11 Wall. 199, “he represents the bank, its stockholders, its creditors, and does not in any sense represent the government,” he is,…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. United States v. HartwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1868
  2. Kennedy v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
  3. Shapley v. . AbbottNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
  4. Bank v. KennedySupreme Court of the United States · 1873
  5. McCormick v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API