Boardman v. De Forest
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of debt, brought on a judgment of the county court for Fairfield county, rendered at the November term, 1799. The defendant pleaded full payment; and, on this issue, the cause was tried at New-Haven, January term, 1823, before Hosmer, Ch. J. On the trial, the defendants adduced evidence to prove, that David C. De Forest, one of the defendants, from the year 1800 or 1801 to the year 1818, with the exception of his residence at Buenos Ayres with his family…
Read the full summary
This was an action of debt, brought on a judgment of the county court for Fairfield county, rendered at the November term, 1799. The defendant pleaded full payment; and, on this issue, the cause was tried at New-Haven, January term, 1823, before Hosmer, Ch. J. On the trial, the defendants adduced evidence to prove, that David C. De Forest, one of the defendants, from the year 1800 or 1801 to the year 1818, with the exception of his residence at Buenos Ayres with his family from the year 1811 to the year 1818, and of occasional absence in Massachusetts, was a resident in the city of New-York,…
1Opinion of the Court
Hosmer. Ch. J.
The general principle stated to the jury, that a debt may be presumed to have been satisfied, when suffered to lie dormant for twenty years, if the forbearance is unexplained by facts, which destroy the reason of the rule, was unexceptionable. That they ought to infer a satisfaction of the debt in question, if there was an unexplained forbearance for the period above-mentioned, is a legal deduction from the preceding principle.
The insolvency of a debtor, it was justly said in the charge of the judge at the trial, constitutes an impediment to the collection of a debt, and repels…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Bank of Columbia v. OkelySupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Farmers & Mechanics' Bank of Pennsylvania v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1821
- M'millan v. M'neillSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Medbury v. HopkinsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1820
- Dunlop & Co. v. BallSupreme Court of the United States · 1804
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Bank of North America v. WheelerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1859
- People v. . Metropolitan Surety Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1912
- Barber v. International Co. of MexicoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1902
- Miller v. Smith's ExecutorsCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1836
- Daggett v. TallmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1830
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.