Devereaux v. Henry
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Butler couuty. Tried below before Post, J. cited: Mayberry v. Willoughby, 5 Neb., 370. Bell v. Morrison, 1 Peters, 352. Angelí on Limitations, 246. 6 Peters, 91. 3 Bingham, 329. 9 Cow., 674. 2 Pick., 368. Miller v. Baschore, 83 Penn. State, 356. cited: Elder v. Dyer, 26 Kan., 604. Penley v. Waterhouse, 3 Iowa, 418. Bissell v. Jaudon, 16 Ohio State, 508. Mill v. Henry, 17 Ohio, 9. Blaheman v. Fonda, 41 Conn., 564.
1Opinion of the CourtReese, J.
The only question presented for decision in this case is, whether of not a letter written by the plaintiff in error to the defendant in error, dated the '2d day of May, 1880, is sufficient to remove the bar of the statute of limitations. The material portion of the letter is as follows: “If ever I get able, I will pay every dollar I -owe to you and all the rest. You can tell all as soon as I get anything to pay with, I will pay. As for giving a note, it is of no use, I will pay just as quick without a note as with it.”
The court below found that the plaintiff in error by this letter…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Elder v. DyerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1881
3Cited by4 opinions
- Nelson v. HansonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1894
- Harris v. ClarkHawaii Supreme Court · 1908
- Garneau v. Omaha Printing Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1897
- Girard Trust Co. v. DixonNebraska Supreme Court · 1911