Compton v. Elliott
The Superior Court of New York City
Appeal by the plaintiff from an order overruling demurrers to defenses alleged in the answer, and from the judgment entered upon such order. The complaint alleged that on September 8, 1867, Joseph.
Read the full summary
Appeal by the plaintiff from an order overruling demurrers to defenses alleged in the answer, and from the judgment entered upon such order. The complaint alleged that on September 8, 1867, Joseph. T. Whitehouse and William H. Hollingshead, as partners, recovered a judgment for $1,074.62 against one Abraham Solomon, and that, in 1867 and 1868, Solomon, being engaged in endeavors to relieve himself from the judgment, by bankruptcy proceedings, and from the orders of arrest granted in the action, the judgment creditors agreed, in consideration of the plaintiff’s preventing Solomon’s discharge,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.—Horace Russell, J.
On the argument- the defense of the statute of limitations was discussed as if it were a demurrer, alleging that on the face of the complaint it appeared that the plaintiff’s cause of action did not accrue within ten years before the beginning of the action, and much was said on the subject whether or not the statute began to run from the time when the moneys were collected by the defendant, or only from the time of a demand made by the plaintiff. It is not a demurrer, and cannot be treated as such. We are concerned to know, not whether the answer can be…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Boughton v. . FlintNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Payne v. . GardinerNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
- Wheeler v. . WarnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Herrick v. . WoolvertonNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Bruce v. . TilsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.