Barker v. Millard
New York Supreme Court
Statute of limitations. The plaintiff, as endorsee, declared against the defendant as endorser of a promissory note bearing date 6th October, 1825, payable in sixty days. The suit was commenced in July term, 1833. The defendant pleaded actio non accrevit infra sex annos.
Read the full summary
Statute of limitations. The plaintiff, as endorsee, declared against the defendant as endorser of a promissory note bearing date 6th October, 1825, payable in sixty days. The suit was commenced in July term, 1833. The defendant pleaded actio non accrevit infra sex annos. The plaintiff replied that the commencement of a suit for the collection of the note was stayed by an injunction from chancery, from the 27th March, 1827, to the 18th October, 1830. To which replication the defendant demurred, and on the argument of the demurrer, the counsel for the plaintiff insisted that the period of time…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Bronson, J.
The statute commenced running in December, 1825, when the note fell due; and the question presented by the replication depends on the former statute of limitations, 1 R. L. 186, § 5. This section corresponds with the statute, 21 Jac. 1, c. § 3, 4, and cer*573tain cases have been held within the equity, though not within the letter of the first and second provisoes of the section. Where the action is brought within six years, and the plaintiff dies before judgment, his executor or administrator may have a new action within the equity of the first proviso. So, if an action…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Huntington v. BrinckerhoffNew York Supreme Court · 1833
3Cited by10 opinions
- Wilkinson v. First National Fire Insurance Co. of WorcesterNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Bucklin v. FordNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- Davis v. AndrewsTexas Supreme Court · 1895
- Whittemore v. SillsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898
- Dawes v. New York, Philadelphia & Norfolk R. Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1899
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.