King v. Lane

• Citation: 7 Mo. 241
• Parties: KING v. LANE.
• Decision Date: 30 September 1841
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

7 Mo. 241

KING

v.LANE.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

September Term, 1841.

APPEAL FROM THE ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT.

SCOTT, J.

Wm. B. King and Ann F. Lane were residents of the State of Virginia, in the year of 1825. While still residing there, King executed two bonds to Lane, payable in November, 1826, afterwards in the year 1834, King left Virginia and became a resident of this State, and some years thereafter died, and the appellant administered on his estate. Ann F. Lane is still a resident of the State of Virginia, and commenced this suit against the appellant in July, 1840.

The question arising upon this state of facts is, whether an action of debt on the bonds is barred by our statute of limitations, limiting an action of debt on bonds and promissory notes to ten years. It is a general and well established principle of law, that in contracts the time of limitations depends on the law of the country in which the action is brought, and not on the law of the country where the contract is made; or in other words, on the lex fori and not on the lex loci contractus. For although contracts are to be construed according to the laws of the country in which they are made, or according to the laws of that country in reference to which they are made, yet the remedy on them must be conformable to the laws of that country in which the remedy is sought. This principle was early recognized in the English jurisprudence. In the case of Duplex v. DeRoven, 2 Vernon, 540, a bill was filed for a discovery of assets and satisfaction of a debt contracted in Rome, and the English statute of limitations was pleaded, and the court allowed the plea. In the case of Stirthost v. Graeme, 2 Blacks. R. 723, and 3 Wilson R. 145, the plaintiff was beyond seas in Germany, and had always resided there. Upon a demurrer to this fact set out in a replication to a plea of non-assumpsit, infra sex annos, the court said, if the plaintiff is a foreigner, and doth not come to England in fifty years, he still hath six years after his coming to England to bring his action; and if he never comes to England himself, he has always a right of action while he lives abroad, and so have his executors or administrators after his death. In the case of Williams v. Jones, 13 East, 439, both plaintiff and defendant resided in India, when the promise on which the action was founded was made, and continued to reside there for more than six years after the making of the promise, and afterwards upon the return of the defendant to England, upon a demurrer to a plea of non-assumpsit, infra sex annos, the court held that the plaintiff was not barred. By the...