| Mo. Ct. App. | Apr 17, 1893
— This was an action on a promissory note for $100, executed to plaintiffs by W. Worthen,. as principal, and Beanland and Barber, as sureties. Barber gave the plaintiffs, payees in the note, notice under the statute to commence suit against the principal and sureties thereon. The plaintiffs thereupon filed the note before a justice of the peace in the county where plaintiffs and the sureties resided. The principal then resided in the city of St. Louis. No service of summons was had upon the principal of the note. Judgment was had against the sureties.
The defendants contend that the plaintiffs did not commence the suit against Worthen, the principal in the note, and proceed with due diligence in the ordinary course of law to judgment and execution as required by statute (sections 8343-8344), and that they are, therefore, discharged. It is true they sued the sureties before a justice of the peace, but no process was issued, or if so it was not served on Worthen, who resided in another county. It is also true that Worthen was without the territorial jurisdiction of the justice at the time of the commencement of the suit, but he was within that of the circuit court. The amount of the note was in the jurisdiction of the latter
On account of the failure of the circuit court to instruct the jury, as it was asked to do, in conformity to the views herein expressed, the judgment will be reversed.