368 FEDBBAL BEPOBTEB. �state and subject to suit here. I can see no reason of public policy or principle which shall withhold the protection of this statute to thia defendant, and yet should give it to a debtrr, who bas eontracted a debt in Missouri and remained there till an action is barred by lapse of time, and then removes or cornes temporarily into this state. In the latter case, it was conceded on the argument, the statute is applicable, and I cannot conceive why it is not just as applicable when the debtor bas removed from this state and remained in another until the laws of that state bar the action for lapse of time. The evi- dent intention of the legislature of this state was to say that the removal of debtors into this state should not revive causes of action ■which had become barred by the laws of other states where they had resided and been subject to suit; that the debtor brought vrith him the defence he had obtained by his residence elsewhere ; and if a debtor leaves this state and takes up his residence elsewhere, and remains there unmolested by suit until suit is barred, it is also barred here. �I much regret that this question has not been passed upon by the supreme court of this state ; but, in the absence of any decision by our state courts on the question, I must go by suchlight as has beenindi- rectly given by the case I have referred to, and what seems to me to have been the evident intention of the legislature. �The demurrer is overruled as to the pleas, and sustained as to the replications. ��� �
