Gillingham v. Gillingham
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
This case came up from the Nisi Prius. It was an action of assumpsit brought to December Term, 1848, by Thomas Gillingham against Joseph Gillingham, to recover, with another note which was not disputed, the amount of a promissory note which was over nineteen years old.
Read the full summary
This case came up from the Nisi Prius. It was an action of assumpsit brought to December Term, 1848, by Thomas Gillingham against Joseph Gillingham, to recover, with another note which was not disputed, the amount of a promissory note which was over nineteen years old. This note was as follows:— $400. Philadelphia, July 28, 1829. Twelve months after date I promise to pay to Thomas Gillingham, trustee, or order, four hundred dollars without defalcation, with interest from this date, for value received. Joseph Gillingham. Received 4th M. 21, 1846, of Joseph Gillingham, two hundred dollars, on…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Coulter, J.
This case is ruled by Kyle and Wells, decided at this term, the opinion in which case was foreshadowed by dictums in Walton v. Morgan, 4 Barr, and in Christy v. Flemington, 10 Barr 129, and which establishes definitively and distinctly, that a promise, to take the case out of the statute of limitations, must be made to the plaintiff or his agent.
But the alleged promise, which in fact was no promise to the plaintiff or to any one in his behalf, but a mere statement by the defendant to his friend, was too vague and uncertain, even if made to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Croman v. StullSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Spangler v. SpanglerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Groome's EstatePennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County · 1939