Conlon v. Lanphear
Decision Date | 05 November 1887 |
Citation | 15 P. 600,37 Kan. 431 |
Parties | JAMES CONLON v. A. H. LANPHEAR |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Atchison District Court.
THE opinion states the case.
Judgment affirmed.
Chas J. Conlon, and Frank Royse, for plaintiff in error.
Martin & Orr, for defendant in error.
OPINION
This action was tried in the Atchison district court, at the March term, 1886, upon the following agreed statement of facts:
There is but a single question in the case, and that is, whether the statute of limitation has run against the claim of the plaintiff, the defendant in error, in this court. Section 21 of the civil code, Compiled Laws of 1879, provides:
"If, when a cause of action accrues against a person, he be out of the state, . . . the period limited for the commencement of the action shall not begin to run until he comes into the state, . . . and if, after the cause of action accrues, he depart from the state, . . . the time of his absence . . . shall not be computed as any part of the period within which the action must be brought."
The statute has reference to the absence personally of the defendant from the state. By the agreed statement of facts he had not been in the state altogether three years since the date of the last item in plaintiff's claim, before the commencement of this action. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bauserman v. Blunt
... ... Lane v. Bank, 6 Kan. 74; Hoggett v. Emerson, 8 Kan. 262; Morrell v. Ingle, 23 Kan. 32; Conlon v. Lanphear, ... Page 657 ... 37 Kan. 431, 15 Pac. Rep. 600. The later decisions of that court recognize the same rule. Railway Co. v. Cook, 43 ... ...
-
Williams v. The St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company
... ... within the meaning of the statute. Lane v. Bank, 6 ... Kan. 74; Hoggett v. Emerson, 8 Kan. 181; Morrell ... v. Ingle, 23 Kan. 32; Conlon v. Lanphear, 37 ... Kan. 431; Bauserman v. Charlott, 46 Kan. 480; ... Bauserman v. Blunt, 147 U.S. 656. Third. When a ... cause of action which ... ...
-
Knupp v. Hubbard
...was absent from the state, the time of such absence should be so excluded in computing the period of limitation. See, also, Conlon v. Lamphier, 37 Kan. 431, 15 P. 600; Stanley v. Stanley, 47 Ohio St. 225, 24 N.E. 493; Anthes v. Anthes, 21 Idaho 305, 121 P. 553; Keith O'Brien Co. v. Snyder, ......
-
Hale v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co.
... ... This case has been ... followed repeatedly. Hoggett v. Emerson, 8 Kan. 262; ... Morrell v. Ingle, 23 Kan. 32; Conlon v ... Lanphear, 37 Kan. 431, 15 P. 600; Ament v ... Lowenthall, 52 Kan. 706, 35 P. 804; Coale v ... Campbell, 58 Kan. 480, 484, 49 P. 604; ... ...