Daniels v. Gallagher

• Decision Date: 20 November 1916
• Docket Number: No. 1830.,1830.
• Citation: 189 S.W. 644
• Parties: DANIELS v. GALLAGHER.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

189 S.W. 644

DANIELS v. GALLAGHER.

No. 1830.

Springfield Court of Appeals, Missouri.

November 20, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; Arch A. Johnson, Judge.

Action by Charles H. Daniels against F. A. Gallagher. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Delaney & Delaney, of Springfield, for appellant.

ROBERTSON, P. J.

Plaintiff and defendant on March 21, 1907, were residents of the state of Pennsylvania. Upon that date defendant executed and delivered to plaintiff his promissory note, due two months thereafter, payable at a bank in that state. Shortly after the maturity of the note the defendant left Pennsylvania, and became and ever since has been a resident of Missouri. April 10, 1914, this action was begun on the note, and judgment obtained thereon for the full amount due, and the defendant has appealed. The defense to the action is that of limitation.

In 1713 (1 Smith's Laws, p. 76) a six-year statute of limitation applicable to a case of this kind was enacted in Pennsylvania. Section 1895, R. S. 1909, of our statute, provides that, when an action is barred by the laws of the state in which it originated, said bar shall be a complete defense to an action thereon brought in this state. These are the facts upon which defendant relies to defeat the collection of this note, but we are relieved of considering the case from this standpoint, inasmuch as plaintiff offered in evidence a later act (1895) of the Pennsylvania assembly (2 Purdon's Digest [13th Ed.] p. 2296, par. 49) reading as follows:

"In all civil suits and actions in which the cause of action shall have arisen within this state the defendant or defendants in such suit or action, who shall have become nonresident of the state after said cause of action shall have arisen, shall not have the benefit of any statute of this state for the limitations of actions during the period of such residence without the state."

This legislation so clearly and fully answers defendant's contention that, in the absence of anything to the contrary, we must follow its plain terms and affirm the judgment. It is so ordered.

STURGIS and FARRINGTON, JJ., concur.