OSGOOD V. ABTT. 367 �together, and the last clause of the eighteeuth section, which is as old as the Revised Statutea of 1827, must, by the operation of the twen- tieth section, be held to mean that the time a defendant is absent from this state after the cause of action accrues, is no part of the lime limited for the commencement of the action, unless the defend- ant resides in another state or country long enough to bar the action by the laws of such state or country. �In Hyman v. McVeigh, 10 Leg. News, 157, the supreme court of this state held that the ■word8"wh6n a cause of action has arisen," as used in this twentieth section, "should be construed as meaning when jurisdiction existe in the courts of a state to adjudicate between the parties upon the particular cause of action, if invoked; or, in other ■\Tords, when the plaintiff has the right to sue the defendant in the courts of the state upon the particular cause of action, without regard to the place where the cause of action had its origin." �The pleas show that defendant removed into and became a resi- dent of the state of Missouri after the note was due. The plaintifi had the right to sue at once in the courts of that state, and the cause of action, in the light of the authority just cited, arose in the state of Missouri as soon as defendant w&s subject to suit there* The stat- ut es of that state bar an action on a contract like this in 10 years from the time the cause of action accrued in that state. Wagner, Si.otMo.c. 89, art.. 2, § 9. : " �If, theref ore, the plaintiff allowed his debtor to remain, in Missouri ■without suit until the bar under the laws of that state became com- plete, then it seems to me that if the defendant retums into this state, either temporarily or to reside permanently, he comes back clothed under the provisions of section 20 of our statute with the protection he has obtained under the laws of Missouri. The plain- tiffa were not residents of this state at the time defendant left and went to Missouri, and cannot be said to have been awaiting here the return of their debtor; and, for aught that appears, they could Il ave brought suit in Missouri at any time while defendant was resid- ing there. �In view of the increased facilities which have been developed within the last few years for communication between the states, and for bringing suits by non-residents, I think the legislature of this state meant to say that a crediter who allowed a debtor to reside in any state or country until his debt was barred by the laws of that state, should not have his right of action revived by the debtor removing into this state, even though he may have been once a resident of this ��� �
