Hyman v. Bayne
Citations
- 83 Ill. 256
Syllabus
<p>1. Limitations — statutes prior to 1873 apply to non-residents. The statutes of limitation in force in this State prior to 1873, when both parties have, at all times, resided continuously out of this State for the statutory period, bar a recovery. The provision that the time any defendant is absent from this State shall not be counted, and allowing suit after his return, does not apply to non-residents who have never been in the State.</p> <p>3. Same—actions barred in otlwr States. The twentieth section of the Limitation Law of 1873 bars a recovery upon causes of action arising in another State or foreign country, when, by the laws thereof, an action can not be maintained by lapse of time, and applies to causes of action barred by the laws of such other State or country at the time the act was passed. By it, suits are barred in our courts, if they are barred by the laws of another State, when the action is brought in this State, without reference to when suit is brought, so that it is after the adoption of the statute.</p> <p>3. Same—constitutionality of statutes. A statute barring a recovery upon a cause of action already barred by the laws of the State where it arose and the parties reside, or declaring that no suit should be maintained after its passage on a new promise to pay a debt barred, unless the new promise is in writing and signed by the debtor, or unless a new consideration was paid for the promise, is not contrary to public policy or any constitutional provision.</p> <p>4. Same—rule as to construing as prospective. Where a retrospective law operates harshly, the courts, presuming that the legislature intended no injustice, where the language is doubtful, will give it a prospective operation; hut if the language is clear and unmistakable, the courts will never hesitate to enforce it. But there is no hardship in barring an action already barred by the laws of a State where the parties reside and the cause of action arose.</p> <p>5. Same—repealing secti
Judges: Walker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
24 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Anglo-American Land, Mortgage & Agency Co. v. LombardEighth Circuit· 1904-07-16· cited 70×
- Davis v. MunieIllinois Supreme Court· 1908-10-26· cited 45×
- Hibernian Banking Ass'n v. Commercial National BankIllinois Supreme Court· 1895-10-11· cited 24×
- Wooley v. YarnellIllinois Supreme Court· 1892-11-02· cited 22×
- Newell Co. v. PetersenAppellate Court of Illinois· 2001-10-30· cited 21×
- Story v. ThompsonAppellate Court of Illinois· 1890-05-28· cited 19×
- Schifferstein v. AllisonIllinois Supreme Court· 1888-01-20· cited 18×
- McMillan v. McCormickIllinois Supreme Court· 1886-05-15· cited 14×
- Heath v. HazelipCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1914-06-19· cited 14×
- Orschel v. RothschildAppellate Court of Illinois· 1925-10-28· cited 14×
- VonBoeckmann v. Corn Products Refining Co.Illinois Supreme Court· 1916-10-24· cited 9×
- McGuigan v. RolfeAppellate Court of Illinois· 1899-02-14· cited 9×
- Campbell v. Iron-Silver Min. Co.Eighth Circuit· 1897-11-22· cited 9×
- Delta Bag Co. v. Frederick Leyland & Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1912-10-03· cited 8×
- Russell & Allison Drainage District v. BensonIllinois Supreme Court· 1888-06-16· cited 6×
- Blackburn University v. WeerAppellate Court of Illinois· 1886-05-19· cited 3×
- Wheeler v. WheelerAppellate Court of Illinois· 1889-12-24· cited 2×
- Wooley v. YarnellAppellate Court of Illinois· 1892-04-11· cited 2×
- O'Donnell v. LewisAppellate Court of Illinois· 1902-11-28· cited 2×
- Jones v. LanderAppellate Court of Illinois· 1886-12-11· cited 1×
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.