Allen & Co. v. Ferguson
Supreme Court of the United States
Error to the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. P. H. Allen & Co. sued A. H. Ferguson upon a promissory-note, dated March 20th, 1867, payable one day after date, with interest. Ferguson appeared and pleaded his discharge in bankruptcy in bar to the action. The plaintiffs replied a new promise in writing made while the proceedings in bankruptcy~we re pending.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. P. H. Allen & Co. sued A. H. Ferguson upon a promissory-note, dated March 20th, 1867, payable one day after date, with interest. Ferguson appeared and pleaded his discharge in bankruptcy in bar to the action. The plaintiffs replied a new promise in writing made while the proceedings in bankruptcy~we re pending. This promise the plaintiffs averred that they l-elred upon, and' in consequence of it made no efforts to collect their debt. The alleged promise was contained in the following letter, which the plaintiffs made part of…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Hunt
The question is, does the letter of the defendant, set forth in the replication, contain a sufficient promise to pay the debt in suit ?
All the authorities agree in this, that the promise by which a discharged debt is revived must be clear, distinct, and unequivocal. It may be an absolute or a conditional promise, but in either case it must be unequivocal, and the occurrence of the condition must be averred if the promise be conditional. The rule is different, in regard to the defence of the statute of limitations against a debt barred by the lapse of time. In that case, acts or declarations…
2Cited by48 opinions
- Lawrence v. . HarringtonNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Warren v. SchaweCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1942
- Champion v. BuckinghamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
- Griel & Bro. v. SolomonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1886
- Torry v. KraussSupreme Court of Alabama · 1907
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.