Barney v. Smith
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Baltimore County Court. Assumpsit brought on the 17th of July 1809, by the plaintiff, (now appellee,) as surviving partner oí S. & J- Smith, against the defendant, (the appellant.) The declaration contained counts for money had and received — for money laid out and expended, and on an insimul eomputassent.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Baltimore County Court. Assumpsit brought on the 17th of July 1809, by the plaintiff, (now appellee,) as surviving partner oí S. & J- Smith, against the defendant, (the appellant.) The declaration contained counts for money had and received — for money laid out and expended, and on an insimul eomputassent. All these promises and accountings are stated to have been to ami with S. & J. Smith, in the life-time of the said J. defendant pleaded non assumpsit, non assumpsit infra ires annos, and actio non accrevit infra tres annos, u-enerai replication to each plea and issue. 1. At the…
1Opinion of the Court
Chase, Ch. J.
delivered the opinion of the court. The court are of opinion, that the act of limitations doe3 not operate to extinguish the debt, but to bar the remedy. The act of limitations is predicated on the principle, that from length of time a presumption is created that the debt has been paid, and that the debtor is deprived of his proof by the death of his witnesses or the loss of receipts. It is the design of the act -of limitations to protect and shield debtors in such a situation; and consistent j with this principle, and this view, the decisions have been made, that the…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Killen v. George Washington Cemetery, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1963
- Potterton v. Ryland Group, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1981
- Stockett v. SasscerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1855
- Columbia Ass'n v. PoteetCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2011
- Felty v. YoungCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1862
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.