Denny v. Marrett
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Bam-sey county, Brill, J., presiding, overruling a demurrer to the complaint. The case is stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Bam-sey county, Brill, J., presiding, overruling a demurrer to the complaint. The case is stated in the opinion. E. O. Rogers, for respondent, cited, as to what constitutes a sufficient acknowledgment, Lee v. Wyse, 35 Conn. 384; Blakeman v. Eonda, 41 Conn. 561; Penley v. Waterhouse, 3 Iowa, 418; Collins v. Bane, 34 Iowa, 385; Bayliss v. Street, 51 Iowa, 627; Buffington v. Davis, 33 Md. 511; Wilcox v. Williams, 5 Nev. 206; Johns v. Lantz, •63 Pa. St. 324; Leigh v. Lintheeum, 30 Tex. 100; Whitcomb v. Whiting, 1 Smith’s Lead. Cas. 703.
1Opinion of the Court
Diciíinson, J.
The defendant was the maker of a promissorynote do the plaintiff. After the statute of limitations had run against the note, the debtor addressed two written communications to the cratf. itor, which refer to the debt in question. The only question is whether these instruments are sufficient to take the note .out of thM operation of the statute of limitations. One of the wL tings is^fl follows:
“I have had two communications from C. M. McCollough, Esq., iir regard to our business affairs. At present, George, I am not able to offer any settlement. It will not be necessary for you…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Brisbin v. FarmerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1871
- Bidwell v. ColemanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1865
3Cited by6 opinions
- Willoughby v. IrishSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- State v. BiesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Baxter v. BrandenburgSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
- Russell & Co. v. DavisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Berghuis v. BurgesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.