Roseboom v. Billington
New York Supreme Court
⅞ c r Cl, OS |-⅛ ⅛* s ^ ⅝ S §⅛? tí • rj O Ph G G O tí tí Cm sr P3 G J CD P3 ⅜-⅞ a o O tí •<00 ^ o oo o £ "3 J* s -, O- Km . G ⅞ §⅞ o g: te i M o 00 o s ⅛-⅜ c o -s ⅜ 3s .c, 0 2 § O pf! ^ o ó tí ⅛¾ S: pí § W 0 HM G O c o .⅛ CS Cij ⅛*? J ⅞1 w To §-¾ CÍÍC3 ¾ &- g.» ⅛ $ cr gr The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, and actio non accrevit infra sen annos, to which the plaintiff" replied, and took issue thereon.
Read the full summary
⅞ c r Cl, OS |-⅛ ⅛* s ^ ⅝ S §⅛? tí • rj O Ph G G O tí tí Cm sr P3 G J CD P3 ⅜-⅞ a o O tí •<00 ^ o oo o £ "3 J* s -, O- Km . G ⅞ §⅞ o g: te i M o 00 o s ⅛-⅜ c o -s ⅜ 3s .c, 0 2 § O pf! ^ o ó tí ⅛¾ S: pí § W 0 HM G O c o .⅛ CS Cij ⅛*? J ⅞1 w To §-¾ CÍÍC3 ¾ &- g.» ⅛ $ cr gr The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, and actio non accrevit infra sen annos, to which the plaintiff" replied, and took issue thereon. The cause was tried on the 10th of June, 1818, and the plaintiff", after proving the making of the note by the defendant, off ered to prove an endorsement on the note, in the hand-writing of…
1Opinion of the Court
Spencer, Ch. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court. The question here is, whether an endorsement of a payment on a promissory note, in the hand-writing of the payee, without any other evidence of the fact of payment, ought to have been submitted to the jury, as proof of the payment, and thereby to take the ease out of the operation of the statute of limitations.
The case of Searle v. Lord Barrington has been much relied on, as deciding this point. (2 Str. 827. 2 Lord Raym. 1370. S. C. 8 Mod. 278. S. C. 3 Bro. P. C. 393. 535. S. C.) The action was on a bond, stated in Strange to be dated in…
2Cited by26 opinions
- Goddard v. William's AdministratorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
- Harding v. GrimOregon Supreme Court · 1894
- Haver v. SchwyhartMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- Crow v. CrowMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
- Young v. PerkinsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.