Jacob Kull & Sons v. Farmer
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil Action, tried at Fall Term, 1877, of Wilson Superior Court, before Eure, J. The defendant being indebted to the plaintiffs on a promissory note, was, in the year 1868 or 1869, under proceedings instituted in the proper District Court- of the United States, declared a bankrupt; and afterwards ■ by a decree of the? Court discharged from his debts.
Read the full summary
Civil Action, tried at Fall Term, 1877, of Wilson Superior Court, before Eure, J. The defendant being indebted to the plaintiffs on a promissory note, was, in the year 1868 or 1869, under proceedings instituted in the proper District Court- of the United States, declared a bankrupt; and afterwards ■ by a decree of the? Court discharged from his debts. After the adjudication in-bankruptcy and before his discharge, the defendant promised to pay the debt, and after his discharge again promised to' pay it. Neither of the prom ises was in writing. This action was commenced more than three years…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, C. J.
(After stating the tacts as above) Although •there are conflicting decisions elsewhere, it is a well settled •doctrine in this State, that the legal effect of a new promise .relied on to remove the bar of the statute of limitations, is to put that impediment out of the way and revive the original cause of action. Hence it is held that a new promise .made after the commencement of suit is sufficient to repel the statute, and enables the plaintiff to recover. Falls v. Sherrill, 2 Dev. & Bat. 371. It is otherwise where a promise Is made to pay a debt discharged under the Bankrupt Act. In this…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hornthall v. . McRaeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1872
3Cited by2 opinions
- Menzel v. Hinton.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
- Menzel v. Hinton.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1903