Palmer v. Andrews
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of California
This action was brought on a promissory note; the statute of limitations was pleaded, and to this a part payment before the maturity of the note, was replied. Held, that the replication was good. A jury was waived in this case and the cause submitted on the pleadings to the court.
1Opinion of the Court
McALLISTER, Circuit Judge.
The grounds ■of the defense as stated in the brief of defendant’s counsel are, that the part payment set up by plaintiff is insufficient to take the case out of the statute of limitations, which has been pleaded; and secondly, that the note sued on is not a promissory note. To sustain the position that part payment in this state is insufficient to take the ease out of the statute of limitations under the law of this .state, reference is made to the case of Fairbanks v. Dawson, 9 Cal. 89. To support the proposition that the note sued on is not a promissory note, the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Fairbanks v. DawsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Sibley v. LumbertSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1849
- Garwood v. SimpsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
3Cited by1 opinion
- Eilke v. RiceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955