6 Mo. 257 | Mo. | 1840
Pennington brought an action of covenant against Castle^ man on a sealed instrument for the payment of money, for a^out the sum of 837 dollars. There are two counts in the declaration. The defendant pleaded, first, non est factum; 2d. limitation of ten years; two pleas of payment: issues were taken on the 1st, 3rd and 4th pleas. The plaintiff demurred to the second plea of the statute of limitations; the the court overruled the plaintiffs demurrer, held the plea good, and gave judgment against the plaintiff. The causéis brought here by a writ of error. The point insl ted on, by the counsel for the plaintiff in error, is that the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the second plea. His argument is, that the statute of limitations contains no limitations of the action of covenant for the payment of money, or any thing else; and not being within the words of the act, there is no reason in equity, policy, or justice, why the supposed spirit of the act should be resorted to, to embrace the action of covenant. On the other side it is contended, that the action of covenant, when founded on a sealed instrument for the payment of money, is as much within the meaning and spirit of the act, as it would be if it had been expressly named in the act. I will proceed to examine the matter of law contained in this proposition. By the 1st sect, of the 2nd art. of 1235, entitled, limitation of ac- . ... /-x n ♦ , . fr>1 _ „ li. 0. ot)o,it is enacted, thus: iheioiiowmg actions sUall be commenced within ten years, after the cause of such action accrued and not after, 1st. all actions of debt found-» any writing, whether sealed or unsealed. 2nd, actions assump.-it, founded on any writing for the direct pay- . * rr„ J , ° ,. r ' ment af money. 1 he statute then goes on to limit nearly1 actions of a personal nature, having before limited ejectment, but it no where limits or says one word abou| actions of covenant, neither when the covenant is for worfy acts to be done, nor where the covenant is for the pay- ' ♦♦.i i meat of money. Hence, it is insisted, by the counsel, that the action of covenant, not being named in the words of the act, is not within its equity. Castleman’s counsel insists; there can be no reason assigned, why the legislature would