Penrose v. King
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
DkbT 6ol. sur obligation dated 8th December 1768, conditioned for the payment of 40I. on the 1st January 1769. Plea payment with leave to give the special matter in evidence. The defendant was security for Moore, a blacksmith who was deceased, and worked for the plaintiff by supplying him with sundry articles as an upholsterer.
Read the full summary
DkbT 6ol. sur obligation dated 8th December 1768, conditioned for the payment of 40I. on the 1st January 1769. Plea payment with leave to give the special matter in evidence. The defendant was security for Moore, a blacksmith who was deceased, and worked for the plaintiff by supplying him with sundry articles as an upholsterer. He rested his defence on the presumption arising from length of time, there being no receipts indorsed on the bond, or any proof of a demand made on the principal or surety. He also contended, that it appeared from the books of the testator, that Moore had settled an…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court.
Neither the English statute of 21 Jac. 1, nor our limitation act, prescribes the period when a suit on a bond shall be barred. But the judges there, adverting to the principle on which the statute of James was enacted, have determined that after a certain length of time, the law will presume that a debt on bond has been discharged; and the courts here have adopted the same idea, in order to prevent stale outstanding debts founded on obligations from being recovered, unless the delay can be accounted for.
Our legislature for wise reasons have determined, that the operation of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bellas v. LevanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835
3Cited by8 opinions
- Harrison v. HeflinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
- Conrad's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Summerville v. HollidaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1833
- Bellas v. LevanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835
- Williams v. CaplesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.