Alcalda v. Morales
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from the First Judicial District Court, Storey County, Hon. Richard Rising, presiding. It was error to compel plaintiff to introduce note of Ramirez & Arrieta. This was a new debt to plaintiff, and on a new consideration. The old note could cut no figure in the case. Admitting the note from Ramirez & Arrieta was barred by the Statute of Limitations, that was no bar to the separate and distinct undertaking of defendant to pay this debt to plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the First Judicial District Court, Storey County, Hon. Richard Rising, presiding. It was error to compel plaintiff to introduce note of Ramirez & Arrieta. This was a new debt to plaintiff, and on a new consideration. The old note could cut no figure in the case. Admitting the note from Ramirez & Arrieta was barred by the Statute of Limitations, that was no bar to the separate and distinct undertaking of defendant to pay this debt to plaintiff. ( Whiting v. Clark, 17 Cal. 407; Lord v. Morris, 18 Cal. 490.) Ramirez & Arrieta did not choose to avail themselves of the Statute of…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Beatty, C. J., Lewis, J.,
concurring.
The facts presented in this case are as follows : In the month of December, 1864, José Ramirez and Jesus Arrieta were doing business as partners in Virginia City, Nevada Territory, under the style of Ramirez & Co. Ramirez went to Sacramento, California, to borrow money for their business. He negotiated a loan with the plaintiff. The following instrument was drawn up in Sacramento :
“ Sacramento City, Dec. 18,1864.
$500. Eight months after date, for value received, we jointly and severally promise to pay to Lucinda Alcalda or order the sum of five…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Acoustics, Inc. v. American Surety Co. of New YorkNevada Supreme Court · 1958
- Bishop v. StewartNevada Supreme Court · 1878
- J. E. Jones & Co. v. Pacific Wood, Lumber & Flume Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1878
- Miliani v. TogniniNevada Supreme Court · 1885
- Howard Ins. Co. of New York v. SilverbergCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1899