Wright v. Mordaunt

• Decision Date: 16 April 1900
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: ROBERT WRIGHT v. FRANK S. MORDAUNT

27 So. 640

77 Miss. 537

ROBERT WRIGHT v. FRANK S. MORDAUNT

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 16, 1900

December 1899

FROM the circuit court of Warren county, HON. W. K. McLAURIN Judge.

Wright the appellant, was the plaintiff, and Mordaunt, the appellee was defendant in the court below.

The opinion states the case. The sections of the code of 1892 referred to are as follows:

"2748 (2678). Absence from the state.--If, after any cause of action have accrued in this state, the person against whom it has accrued be absent from and reside out of the state, the time of his absence shall not be taken as any part of the time limited for the commencement of the action, after his return."

"2754 (2684). Action barred in another state barred here. --When a cause of action has accrued in some other state or in a foreign country, and by the law of such state or country, or of some other state or country where the defendant has resided before he resided in this state, an action thereon cannot be maintained by reason of lapse of time, an action thereon shall not be maintained in this state."

Affirmed.

Booth & Booth, for appellant.

While the precise question has never been decided in this state, this court has elaborately discussed the whole subject and announced the principle which we think must control in the present controversy. This principle is that our statute of limitations cannot he invoked in favor of a party until he comes within the jurisdiction of our courts. Robinson v. Moore, 76 Miss. 89; vide, also, Estis v. Rowlins, 5 How. (Miss.), 258.

Miller, Smith & Hirsch, for appellee.

At common law the limitation of actions does not depend on the law of the place where the contract was made, but on the law of the forum. Perkins v. Gray, 55 Miss. 153.

The only provisions of our statutory law having relation to the general rule that the lex fori governs, are §§ 2748, 2754, code 1892, which do not affect the question before the court.

The cause of action in Robinson v. Moore, 76 Miss. 89, relied on by appellant, accrued in this state, and the decision is consequently inapplicable.

OPINION

CALHOON, J.

The promissory note sued on was executed in Illinois, payable in Illinois, and both parties resided in that state at the time of its execution and maturity. Its date is July 1, 1892, and it matured September 4, 1892. The law of Illinois does not bar actions on promissory notes until ten years have elapsed after maturity. In the spring of 1898 the maker, Mordaunt, took up his residence in Mississippi, and on June 6, 1899, he was sued on the note by the payee, Wright, and pleaded the six years statute of limitations, and, his demurrer to Wright's replication setting up the above facts being sustained, Wright appeals. The note was barred when the action was begun. The lex fori...