Weber v. Manning
| Decision Date | 31 October 1835 |
| Citation | 4 Mo. 229 |
| Parties | JOHN H. WEBER v. FORMAN MANNING, ADM'R OF ANDREW HENRY, DEC'D. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY.
Henry brought his action of debt on a single bill obligatory against Weber; and he dying, Manning administered and prosecuted the action. The Circuit Court gave judgment for Manning, and to reverse it, Weber prosecutes this writ of error. Weber pleaded first, that the cause of action did not accrue within ten years; secondly, that the single bill obligatory sued on was delivered by him to Henry, on “a condition signed by said Henry, that he Weber should not in any event be bound to pay the sum of money in said supposed writing obligatory mentioned, except after a settlement of all partnership accounts between Andrew Henry and John H. Weber, and also, of the private accounts of the said persons; and after the settlement of such accounts he was to pay the sum in the said supposed writing obligatory mentioned, only upon condition that sum should appear to be due to said Henry, which settlement and examination of the books and papers in said condition mentioned has not been made,” &c. Profert was made of the writing pleaded as a defeasance, and issue taken on the plea. To the first plea the plaintiff replied, that Weber, on the 20th October, 1822, when the cause of action accrued, and for eight months afterwards, was beyond the seas, &c. The defendant rejoined, denying that he was beyond the seas, and alleging that he was within the territory of the United States, beyond the limits of the State of Missouri, at the time of executing the said supposed writing obligatory, &c. No issue was joined on this plea. The court, however, sitting as a jury, found that the defendant was beyond seas, as charged, &c. and also found the issue joined on the second plea for the plaintiff, and gave him judgment accordingly. The defendant moved for a new trial, for the following reasons: 1st, because the issue on the second plea should have found for the defendant on the evidence offered; 2nd, because the debt was in fact barred by the statute of limitations; 3rd, because the judgment was against law and evidence. This motion was overruled. By the bill of exceptions it appears that no evidence was offered on the second plea to show that any settlement had been made between the parties; on the part of the defendant, the following writing was offered and admitted in evidence to support the second plea, viz: John H. Weber hath this day passed me his note of hand...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Troll v. City of St. Louis
...or claiming adversely to him. The cause of action must have accrued before the statute runs. Rabshe v. Lack, 35 Mo. 316; Weber v. Manning, 4 Mo. 229. Or, as was held in the case of Gray v. Givens, 26 Mo. 291, that the statute begins to run from the time a cause of action accrues and a suit ......
-
Falvey v. Hicks
...nine years and she still had about a year in which to commence her action before it became barred by the terms of that statute. In Weber v. Manning, 4 Mo. 229, a statute declaring that all actions of debt founded any writing shall be commenced and sued on within ten years next after the cau......
-
Telanus v. Simpson
...own evidence, more than two years had elapsed after the enactment of the statute before suit was instituted. Laws 1921, p. 197; Weber v. Manning, 4 Mo. 229; Callaway County v. Nolley, 31 Mo. 398; Forcht v. Short, 45 Mo. 377; Seibert v. Copp, 62 Mo. 182; Investment Co. v. Curry, 264 Mo. 483;......
-
Falvey v. Hicks
...nine years and she still had about a year in which to commence her action before it became barred by the terms of that statute. In Weber v. Manning, 4 Mo. 229, a statute declaring all actions of debt founded on any writing shall be commenced and sued on within ten years next after the cause......