Fletcher v. Spaulding

• Decision Date: 01 January 1864
• Citation: 9 Minn. 54
• Parties: JOEL W. FLETCHER vs. ASAPH SPAULDING.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 54

9 Minn. 54

JOEL W. FLETCHERvs.

ASAPH SPAULDING.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Appeal from judgment of the district court, Fillmore County.

Points and authorities for appellant: —

1. When a cause of action has arisen in another state, and a citizen of that state has had such cause of action from the time it accrued, no statute of limitations can be set up as a defense to such action except the statute of the state where it accrued. Minn. Pub. Stat. 629-30, ch. 72, § 39.

2. Sec. 39, ch. 72, of Pub. Stat. provides for those special cases which are excepted from the provisions of § 3, ch. 60, and in which a different limitation is prescribed from those mentioned in ch. 60, of Pub. Stat.

3. The pleadings and facts proved show that the statute of limitations of the State of Massachusetts was the only statute of limitations which could properly be set up as a defense to this action. The respondent omitted to set that up in his answer.

Points and authorities for respondent: —

1. Under the circumstances of the case the statute of limitations of Minnesota is a bar to this action. Comp. Stat. ch. 60, § 3; id. 532, § 6, sub. 1; id. 533, § 16; id. 629-30, ch. 72, § 39.

Henry C. Butler, for appellant.

C. G. Ripley, for respondent.

FLANDRAU, J.

This action was brought upon two promissory notes executed in the State of Massachusetts, one by the plaintiff Fletcher as surety, and the defendant Spaulding as principal, to the president, directors, and company, of the Fitchburg Bank, for $300, which the plaintiff was compelled to pay at its maturity, to-wit, the twenty-fourth day of January, 1853, and the other for $100, executed by the defendant directly to the plaintiff, which was due on the eighth day of December, 1853. Several payments are alleged to have been made on the notes, the consideration of which is unnecessary upon the points involved in the case. The defendant answered that none of the causes of action accrued within six years before the commencement of this action, which was the fifteenth day of October, 1862. The following facts were proved on the trial: That both the causes of action stated in the complaint accrued in the State of Massachusetts, and that at the time the notes were made and when they matured the plaintiff and defendant were both residents of said state; that the plaintiff has ever since been and now is a resident and citizen of Massachusetts, and has had both of the causes of action from the time they accrued; that the defendant has not paid any sum whatever on either obligation since the eighth day of December, 1855; that the defendant removed to the State of Minnesota more than six years before the commencement of this action, and has since continuously resided in said state for more than six years (exclusive of the time of any absence therefrom), and more than six years since either of the causes of action accrued. The findings of the court were in accordance with these facts, upon which, as matter of law, it was decided that the statute of limitations had run against the plaintiff's claims, and judgment was rendered for the defendant.

The limitation of actions will always be governed by the lex fori, unless there is some provision therein referring such limitation to other laws. The contract will be construed according to the laws of that country in reference to which it is made, but the remedy on it must be prosecuted according to the laws of that country in which the remedy is sought. Time, place, and manner, of commencing a suit pertain to the remedy, and he who elects to...