Opp v. Wack
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Phillips Circuit Court. M. T. Sanders, Judge. There is no unconditional promise to pay, nor any unqualfied acknowledgment that the claims were due; nor any express promise to pay them; nor are the debts identified. If there be a promise at all, it is only a conditional one, and there is no proof that the condition has been performed.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Phillips Circuit Court. M. T. Sanders, Judge. There is no unconditional promise to pay, nor any unqualfied acknowledgment that the claims were due; nor any express promise to pay them; nor are the debts identified. If there be a promise at all, it is only a conditional one, and there is no proof that the condition has been performed. In no particular does this letter come up to the rule required by the statute. 26 Ark., 343; 1 Peters, 331; 8 N. Y., 369; 9 N. Y., 83 The proof shows there was no other indebtedness than the one mentioned in the letter, which is the foundation of this…
1Opinion of the CourtSanders, J.
Action brought June 4, 1887, by appellee, upon six bills of exchange — one dated October 8, 1881, due at ninety days, for $212.80; one dated October 25, 1881, due at ninety days, for $311.05, and four dated November 14, 1881, for $82.12 each, and due at fifteen, thirty, forty and sixty days, respectively.
The complaint also alleges that on October 3, 1882, appellant, in writing, acknowledged said several debts, and promised to pay the same. Answer — statute of limitations and denial of promise to pay within five years. The letter written by R. A. Opp, appellant, dated October 3, 1882, upon…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Street Improvement District No. 113 of Hot Springs v. MooneySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1942
- McHenry v. LittletonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1964
- Kelly v. LeachmanIdaho Supreme Court · 1893
- Thomason v. WilcoxSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1941
- Wilcox v. WilcoxMichigan Supreme Court · 1905