Cook v. Martin
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit, upon a note and a book account, both of which became due at different dates in the year 1850. The claims were originally owned by the plaintiffs as partners under the name of Eddy & Cook. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, upon a note and a book account, both of which became due at different dates in the year 1850. The claims were originally owned by the plaintiffs as partners under the name of Eddy & Cook. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations. Upon the trial of the cause to the jury, the plaintiffs, for the purpose of proving a new promise, offered the plaintiff Cook as a witness, who testified that in the year 1855 he had a conversation with the defendant, in which he asked him if he could pay Mm what he owed him; to which the defendant replied that he could not then, but if he would…
1Opinion of the CourtSanford, J.
The whole evidence offered by the plaintiffs to relieve their demand from the operation of the statute of limitations, was objected to, and rejected, because it was said that the new promise, claimed to have been made in 1855, was *66too ambiguous, uncertain and indefinite, both in itself, and in connection with the evidence of what transpired between the parties in 1850, to go to the jury as evidence of a new promise or acknowledgment by the defendant, of the debts for which the suit was brought.
We think the evidence ought to have been received. For although it is true, that in order to relieve…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Buckingham v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1855
3Cited by5 opinions
- Deep River National Bank's Appeal From CommissionersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1900
- Morrell v. FerrierSupreme Court of Colorado · 1883
- Blakeman v. FondaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1874
- Root v. ThomasSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1942
- Wilcox v. ClarkeSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1893