Norton v. Shepard
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit for goods sold; brought to the District Court of Litchfield County. The defendant pleaded the general issue with notice of the statute of limitations, and the case was tried to the court before Fyler, J. The facts were found and judgment rendered for the defendant, and the plaintiff brought the record before this court by a motion • in error. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtLoomis, J.
Our statutes of limitation do not create an arbitrary bar to the recovery of a debt independent of the will of the debtor. If they did a new promise would not avail the creditor unless founded on some new consideration, and in such case the action would have to be brought on the new promise. But our courts have always considered them mere statutes of repose, which suspend the remedy, leaving the debt uncanceled and still binding in foro eonscientice. Hence it is well settled that the debt may be revived and the bar to its recovery removed by a new promise, either express or implied. Lord v.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Belknap v. GleasonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1836
- Sluby v. ChamplinNew York Supreme Court · 1809
- Bound v. LathropSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1822
- Wooters v. KingIllinois Supreme Court · 1870
- Blakeman v. FondaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1874
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Markham v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
- Booth v. Booth & Bayliss Commercial School, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
- Benton v. BentonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1908
- Buckley v. BuckleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1957
- Duncan v. ReddCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1914
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.