True v. Andrews
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On facts agreed. Assumpsit by the indorsee of a note, made in 1838, by the defendants, Abraham Andrews & Stephen Andrews, as co-partners. In 1847, Stephen Andrews paid $25, upon the note, which was subsequently indorsed to the plaintiff.
1Opinion of the CourtWells, J.
— It is contended by the plaintiff, that the payment made by Stephen Andrews, one of the partners, should be regarded as a new promise by both of them, and takes the *184case out of the statute of limitations. And such was the law prior to the passage of the Revised Statutes.
But by c. 146, § 20, one joint contractor does not lose the benefit of its provisions by an acknowledgment or promise made by another. And by the twenty-fourth section of the same chapter it is provided, “ If there are two or more joint contractors, or joint executors or administrators of any contractor, no one of them shall…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Campbell v. HerrickSupreme Court of Kansas · 1919