Waters v. Waters
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CASE 34 — PETITION ORDINARY ArrEAL FROM BARREN CIRCUIT COURT. Tbe facts appear in the opinion of the court. 1. The circuit court should have allowed the demand set up by the defendant against the plaintiff. 2. The lapse of time — more than twenty-seven years — operates as a complete defense to the action.
Read the full summary
CASE 34 — PETITION ORDINARY ArrEAL FROM BARREN CIRCUIT COURT. Tbe facts appear in the opinion of the court. 1. The circuit court should have allowed the demand set up by the defendant against the plaintiff. 2. The lapse of time — more than twenty-seven years — operates as a complete defense to the action. (6 Mon., 609; 2 Dana, 471 ; 5 Dana, 525.) The demand of payment, when the obligor refused to pay, stating that he did not owe one cent of the debt, is not sufficient to repel the legal presumption of payment. The presumption of payment arising from lapse of time may be rebutted. (18 B. Mon.,…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE DUVALL
delivered the opinion of the court:
This was an action in the name of Thomas H. Waters, for the use of Lydia Hindman, against P. B. Waters, on a note executed by the latter to the former, dated and due the 10th March, 1827. The suit was brought in September, 1854.
The defendant, in his original answer, “ states that the note sued on has been and was well and truly paid off and discharged before the institution of this suit,” and he relies upon and pleads the lapse of time after the date of said note before the institution of this suit. In an amended answer he alleges, in substance,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Gross, Kelly & Co. v. BiboNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1914
- Smith v. RichmondCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
- Way v. SperryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1850
- Lamaster v. DeanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1945