Hawse v. Burgmire
| Decision Date | 01 December 1878 |
| Citation | 4 Colo. 313 |
| Parties | HAWSE v. BURGMIRE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to County Court of Clear Creek County.
THE facts are stated in the opinion.
Messrs ROCKWELL & HUGHES, for plaintiff in error.
Messrs MORRISON & WHITE, for defendant in error.
This action was brought by Burgmire against Hawse on the following promissory note:
'GOLDEN CITY, COLORADO, April 16, 1872.
Six months after date I promise to pay H. Burgmire, or order, the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars, with twelve per cent interest from date.
SAMUEL HAWSE.'
The declaration contained a special count on the promissory note and also the consolidated common counts.
The defendant pleaded (1) the general issue and (2) that the cause of action arose without the State of Colorado more than two years before the commencement of the action.
By section 16, chapter 60, General Laws, it is enacted as follows: 'It shall be lawful for any person against whom any action shall be commenced in any court of this State where the cause of action accrued without the State, upon a contract or agreement, express or implied, more than two years before the commencement of the action * * * to plead the same, and give the same in bar of the plaintiff's right of action.'
Of the validity of this section we entertain no doubt. The several States may, in virtue of their reserved sovereignty, bar by statute, remedies upon contracts made in sister States, if suit be not brought for their enforcement within the period prescribed. That the period limited by statute within which to bring suit upon actions or contracts arising in this State, is greater than the period prescribed for those arising on contracts in other States is not material. The statute of limitations of each State is without extra-Territorial force. By the law of the forum the remedy must be determined. Angell on Lim., ch. 8.
The controlling inquiry in this case is, whether the note upon which suit is brought comes within the true intent and meaning of this section, whether it is a cause of action which accrued within the State. Upon the solution of this question must depend our decision.
The note is an express contract. It was made in Golden City in this State, and there delivered to Burgmire's agent. On this contract the liability of the defendant arose. It is, however, contended that although the note was dated and executed within the State, that it must be treated as a Wyoming contract, on the ground that the original liability which was the inducement to the execution of the note, arose in the Territory of Wyoming.
Hawse had in Wyoming guaranteed the payment of a certain debt to Burgmire. This he failed to satisfy. For the amount of that he gave the note in suit. The former indebtedness was thus merged in the note. On its face it is a Colorado note, and the evidence proves that it was made here.
In our view it was not the purpose of the law-makers to include in the provisions of the section we are considering, contracts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lamb v. Powder River Live Stock Co.
...13 Pet. 312, 327, 10 L.Ed. 177; Bank v. Dalton, 9 How. 522, 13 L.Ed. 242; Terry v. Anderson, 95 U.S. 628, 633, 24 L.Ed. 365; Hawse v. Burgmire, 4 Colo. 313); but the to enact such statutes is subject to the fundamental condition that a reasonable time must be given for the exercise of the r......
-
Bliler v. Boswell
... ... 2, p. 34.) Upon the general proposition that the ... laws of the other State do not apply, the following ... authorities are cited. ( Hawse v. Burgmire, 4 Colo., ... 413; Thompson v. Ketchum, 8 Johns., 189; Collins ... v. Manville, 170 Ill. 614; Wood v. Bissell, 108 ... Ind ... ...
-
Smith v. Kent Oil Co.
...The statute of limitations of any state is without extraterritorial effect, and limitations are governed by the law of the forum. Hawse v. Burgmire, 4 Colo. 313; Lamb v. Powder River Live Stock Co., 8 Cir., 132 F. 434, 65 C.C.A. 570, 67 L.R.A. '* * * the general rule is that in respect of t......
-
Kolbow v. State (In re Colbert's Estate)
...are held not repugnant to this provision. Chemung Canal Bank v. Lowery, 93 U. S. 72, 23 L. Ed. 806;Meek v. Meek, 45 Iowa, 294;Hawse v. Burgmire, 4 Colo. 313. The judgment and order are affirmed. Affirmed.SMITH and HOLLOWAY, JJ., ...