57 Mo. 416 (Mo. 1874), Shaw v. Pershing

Citation:57 Mo. 416
Opinion Judge:ADAMS, Judge.
Party Name:SOUTHWORTH SHAW, Respondent, v. JOHN F. PERSHING, Appellant.
Attorney:Lander, Burgess & Huston, for Appellant. Geo. W. Easley and W. H. Brownlee, for Respondent.
Court:Supreme Court of Missouri

Page 416

57 Mo. 416 (Mo. 1874)



JOHN F. PERSHING, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

August Term, 1874

Appeal from Linn Circuit Court.

Lander, Burgess & Huston, for Appellant.

I. The deed was last traced to the North Kingston post office, the 20th of May, 1872, at which place no search or inquiry has ever been made.

Where the original is traced to a particular place of custody, search and inquiry at that place or custody will not be dispensed with; and the custodian or person making the search must be called. ( Jackson vs. Hasbrook, 12 Johns. 192, 195; 3 Hawk. 364; 1 Carr & P., 282: 1 Ala. 71; 2 Mil. & R., 220, 222; Taunton Bank vs. Richardson, 5 Pick. 443.)

This deed being for land in the military district, more rigid proof of loss or destruction of the original is required in order to let in copies. (Barton vs. Moraine, 27 Mo. 135; Carr vs. Carr, 36 Mo. 408; Christy vs. Cavanaugh, 45 Mo. 375; Mariner vs. Saunders, 5 Gil., [Ill.] 113.)

II. The non-suit mentioned in the statute, (Wagn. Stat., 919, § 19) must mean one forced upon the plaintiff by the action of the court. ( Gentry County vs. Black, 32 Mo. 542; Hageman vs. Moreland, 33 Mo. 86; Corby vs. Tyler, 33 Mo. 374; Rainey vs. Edmonson, 33 Mo. 375.) All non-suits under our practice are voluntary. (Atkinson vs. Lane, 8 Mo. 408; Clark vs. Steamboat Mound City, 9 Mo. 146; McDermott vs. Doyle, 11 Mo. 443; Martin vs. Henley, 13 Mo. 312; Wells vs. Gaty, 8 Mo. 681.)

Any other construction would place it in the power of the plaintiff to avoid the statute at his caprice, so long as he might feel disposed to annoy the occupant by thus trifling in the matter, with no intention ever to prosecute his action to judgment. That a voluntary dismissal will not interrupt the running of the statute, is well settled. (Ang. Lim., p. 347, 348, 349; Riddlesbarger vs. Hartford Ins. Co., 7 Wal. 391; Delaplane vs. Crowninshield, 3 Mason, [U. S.,] 329; Swan?? vs. Littlefield, 6 Cush. 417; Hughes vs. Stewart, 8 Washb., [23 Vt.] 622; Richmond vs. Mansfield Ins. Co., 8 Cr. 84; 7 Abb. 308; Harris vs. Harris, 1 Serg. & R., 236; Shields vs. Boon, 22 Tex. 193; Sherman vs. Barnes, 8 Conn. 138; Clark vs. Keller, 3 Bush. [Ky.] 223; 3 McCord, [S. C.] 452; 3 Har., [N. J.] 269; C. Ired., [N. C.] 428; Donnell vs. Gatchell, 3 Heath, (Me.) 217; Haymaker vs. Haymaker, 4 Ohio 281.)

III. The State law as to non-suits has no application to the United States Circuit Court. An action commenced in one State will not stop the running of the statute of limitations of another State, where the second action is commenced...

To continue reading