Legal Opinion
Davis v. Van Zandt
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia
Decided June 15, 1820Published
Assumpsit, against the maker of a nóte. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations. Upon the trial the plaintiff proved that within three years, the defendant promised to pay when he'should be able. contended that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant is or has been, since the promise, able to pay.
1Opinion of the Court
But
the CouRT
{nan. con.) said it was not necessary to prove that fact to take the note out of the statute of limitations. The action.is brought on the note, and not on the new promise.
(But see Wetzel v. Bussard, 11 Wheat. 309; Read v. Wilkinson, 2 Wash. C. C. Rep. 514; Lonsdale v. Brown, 3 Wash. C. C. Rep. 404.)
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wetzell v. BussardSupreme Court of the United States · 1826
- Lonsdale v. BrownU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1818
- Read v. WilkinsonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania · 1811