Harrison v. Union Nat. Bank
| Decision Date | 04 April 1882 |
| Parties | HARRISON v. UNION NAT. BANK. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to the district court for Gage county. Tried below before Weaver, J.Colby & Hazlett and Charles O. Bates, for plaintiff.
A. Hardy, for defendant.
This is an action upon a promissory note, of which the following is a copy:
+----------------------------------------+
¦“$759.81.¦JANESVILLE, WIS., May 8, 1872.¦
+----------------------------------------+
Six months after date I promise to pay to the order of James S. Marsh & Co., at the First National Bank of Janesville, Wis., seven hundred and fifty-nine dollars and eighty-one cents, value received, with interest at the rate of 10 per cent. from date until paid.
T. H. HARRISON.”
After the note became due it was transferred to the defendant in error, which brought an action thereon against the maker in the district court of Gage county in January, 1878. The defence is the statute of limitations.
Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that “if, when a cause of action accrues against a person, he be out of the state, or shall have absconded or concealed himself, the period limited for the commencement of the action shall not begin to run until he come into the state, or while he is absconded or concealed; and if, after the cause of action accrues, he depart from the state, or abscond, or conceal himself, the time of his absence or concealment shall not be computed as any part of the period within which the action must be brought.”
The testimony shows that Harrison, at the time of making the note in question, was a resident of the state of Wisconsin, and that he continued to reside there until October, 1875, when he removed to this state. There is no allegation in the answer, nor any testimony, tending to show that the statute of Wisconsin had run against the claim at the time Mr. Harrison left that State. That being the case, the question is to be determined by our statute, which gives five years in which to bring an action upon a promissory note. We know of no rule that would permit us to add the time during which the maker of the note continued to reside in Wisconsin after it became due to the time that he has resided in this state, and thereby create the bar of the statute. Unless his residence in this state was continued for a sufficient length of time to constitute a bar, it is no defence in an action brought on the instrument in this state. And in an action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keith Bros. v. Heffelfinger
... ... Shoe Co; about $ 300.00 a debt owing by Andrus at a bank; and ... an account due one McKnight. Andrus at this time was owing ... ...
- Harrison v. Union Nat. Bank