Lindsey v. Lyman
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Ha/rdim, District Gourt. Thursday, October 9. On the 16th day of October, 1872, plaintiff instituted an action against defendant upon a promissory note executed by defendant to W. P. Large, and indorsed without recourse, dated June 5, 1861, due one day after date; and to take the case out of the bar of the statute of limitations, relied upon a letter of defendant, dated November 14, 1869, acknowledging the existence of the debt, and promising to pay as soon as he…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Ha/rdim, District Gourt. Thursday, October 9. On the 16th day of October, 1872, plaintiff instituted an action against defendant upon a promissory note executed by defendant to W. P. Large, and indorsed without recourse, dated June 5, 1861, due one day after date; and to take the case out of the bar of the statute of limitations, relied upon a letter of defendant, dated November 14, 1869, acknowledging the existence of the debt, and promising to pay as soon as he could. To the petition the defendant demurred as follows: “ Said petition shows affirmatively that its cause of claim…
1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.
The only position urged by appellee is that the promise to pay, being made before the debt was barred by the statute of limitations, does not take it out of the operation of the statute. This precise question was raised in Penley v. Waterhouse, 3 Iowa, 418, and was there, upon both principle and authority, decided adversely to the position assumed by appellee. See the opinion on pages 435-6, And, although the correctness of that decision is assailed in the argument, it *207is in onr opinion in accord with reason and supported by logic which is impregnable. Fully satisfied with the conclusions…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Penley v. WaterhouseSupreme Court of Iowa · 1856
3Cited by3 opinions
- McConaughy v. WilseySupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- In Re Estate of SleezerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1929
- Bullard v. LopezNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1894