Currier v. Lockwood
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit, upon a written instrument described as a note, with the common counts; brought originally before a justice of the peace and appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Fairfield County, and tried in that court, upon the general issue closed to the court, with notice that the action was barred by the statute of limitations, before Brewster, J. The suit was brought June 1st, 1872. In the special count the plaintiffs averred “ that the defendant, in and by a certain…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, upon a written instrument described as a note, with the common counts; brought originally before a justice of the peace and appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Fairfield County, and tried in that court, upon the general issue closed to the court, with notice that the action was barred by the statute of limitations, before Brewster, J. The suit was brought June 1st, 1872. In the special count the plaintiffs averred “ that the defendant, in and by a certain writing or note, under his hand by him well executed, dated the 22d day of January, 1863, promised the plaintiffs to pay to…
1Opinion of the CourtSeymour, C. J.
The first question in this case is whether the writing sued upon is a promissory note within the meaning of those words in the statute of limitations. The statute is as follows : “No action shall be brought on any bond or writing obligatory, contract under seal, or promissory note not negotiable, but within seventeen years next after an action shall accrue.” The instrument sued upon is as follows:
“ Bridgeport, Jan. 22d, 1863. 117.14. Due Currier & Barker seventeen dollars and fourteen cents, value received.
Frederick Lockwood.”
Promissory notes not negotiable are by the statute above recited…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Kimball & Kiniston v. HuntingtonNew York Supreme Court · 1833
- Bristol v. WarnerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1848
- Russell v. WhippleNew York Supreme Court · 1824
- Orr v. DuvallSupreme Court of Alabama · 1840
- Harrow v. DuganCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1838
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Gay v. RookeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
- Miller v. JonesNebraska Supreme Court · 1940
- Shimel v. WilliamsNew York Supreme Court · 1930
- Carling Tool Machine Co., Inc. v. LapointeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1938
- Rodgers v. RobsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1907
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.