Miller v. Tyler
| Decision Date | 31 October 1875 |
| Citation | 61 Mo. 401 |
| Parties | WM. D. MILLER, Respondent, v. JNO. TYLER, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Greene County Circuit Court.
E. L. Edwards & Son, for Appellant.
Massey, McAfee & Phelps, for Respondent, cited, Johnson vs. Smith, 43 Mo., 499.
This was an action commenced in the Greene circuit court on the 9th day of February, 1870, to recover the value of certain wheat taken by the defendant from the plaintiff, on or about the 1st of December, 1861. The trial was by the court without the aid of a jury, and there was a finding and judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant brings the case here by appeal.
The material question presented by the record is, whether the plaintiff's action was barred by the statute of limitations. It appears from the testimony that the defendant left his home in Greene county about the 15th day of February, 1862, and was absent in the States of Arkansas and Texas until about the 15th day of May, 1865. In the latter part of February, 1862, his family removed from the farm on which they resided at the time he left them, and went to the house of his mother-in-law, in Lawrence county, where they remained until the year 1864, when they removed to Saline county, where they remained until May, 1865, and then returned with the defendant to Greene county. The foregoing facts are undisputed.
The sixteenth section of the limitation act, applicable to civil actions, provides that if after a cause of action shall have accrued against any person who is a resident of this State. such person depart from and reside out of this State, the time of his absence shall not be deemed or taken as any part of the time limited for the commencement of such action.
In order to determine whether the statute of limitations ceased to run against the plaintiff during the time of defendant's absence, it is only necessary to ascertain whether during such absence the defendant was subject to the ordinary process of law in this State.
If during that time he could have been served so as to warrant a general judgment, the section of the statute cited above did not apply, and the plaintiff's action was barred. It is evident that process could not have been served upon the defendant so as to warrant a general judgment, unless he could have been served by leaving a copy of the petition and writ at his usual place of abode, with some member of his family over the age of fifteen years; and under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Branner v. Klaber
...185 Pac. 174; Tilton v. Rader (Iowa), 164 N.W. 873; 25 Cyc. 1025; Garth v. Roberts, 20 Mo. 523; Venuci v. Cademartoni, 59 Mo. 353; Miller v. Taylor, 61 Mo. 401; Rhodes v. Farish, 16 Mo. App. 430; Bensley v. Haeberte, 20 Mo. App. 648; State ex rel. v. Allen, 132 Mo. App. 98, 114; Hussman v. ......
-
State v. Allen
...abode therein occupied by his family so that service of process can be obtained in the ordinary manner, the statute ceases to run. Miller v. Tyler, 61 Mo. 401; Rhodes v. Farrish, 16 Mo. App. 430; Tiller v. Abernathy, 37 Mo. 196. Counsel for relator say defendants' position is absurd, since ......
-
Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Boundy
...Johnson v. Smith, supra, is not in point because this defendant did not break up his residence and reside elsewhere. And the cases of Miller v. Tyler, supra, v. Farrish, supra, and Tiller v. Abernathy, supra, are not in point because this defendant did leave a place of abode in this State o......
-
Haver v. Bassett
...* * *. Under such circumstances we can see no obstacle to the statute running.' Accord: Garth v. Robards, 20 Mo. 523. See Miller v. Tyler, 61 Mo. 401; State ex rel. Shipman v. Allen, 132 Mo.App. 98, 111 S.W. 622; Bensley v. Haeberle, 20 Mo.App. 648, 653, where the court said: 'It is the fac......