Gemberling v. Myer
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
The declaration stated, that the intestate on the 7th June 17 69 was indebted to the plaintiff’ in ill. 10s 8d. for money had and, received to his use of and from the estate of Tobias Ritter, as administrator thereof, and so being indebted, promised to pay, &c. (the request to the now administrators laid on the 1st June 1789.) Pleas, non assumpsit and payment, and non assumpsit infra sex armos.
Read the full summary
The declaration stated, that the intestate on the 7th June 17 69 was indebted to the plaintiff’ in ill. 10s 8d. for money had and, received to his use of and from the estate of Tobias Ritter, as administrator thereof, and so being indebted, promised to pay, &c. (the request to the now administrators laid on the 1st June 1789.) Pleas, non assumpsit and payment, and non assumpsit infra sex armos. The plaintiff and intestate were joint administrators of the estate of Ritter, and settled their administration account, fwhich were passed in the Orphans’ Court of Lancaster county; and on the 7th…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
The case of Cockram v. Welbye is not very intelligible. It appears to me that the act of limitation applies to the case before me, and that it forms none of the exceptions thereto. The act is founded on common justice and experience, receipts may be lost and witnesses will die; indeed slender proof of an acknowledgment of the demand will take a case out of the act; and in one instance, (2 Burr. 1099,) it has been determined, that such acknowledgment pending the suit, may be received in evidece. Here nineteen *343years elapsed after the decree, before any suit was brought, and probably substantial…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Vincent v. WatsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1861
- Man v. WarnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
- Warner v. BrintonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1835