Legal Opinion

Innoncente v. Guisti

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Decided July 26, 1945Published

1DissentMoss, J.

I am unable to concur with the opinion of the court in the matter of the suspension of the operation of the statute of limitations by the plaintiff’s application, on the mortgage note, of the net proceeds of the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property, as a partial payment of the note. I am convinced that according to sound reasoning and the greater weight of authority, such a crediting does not show a recognition by the maker of the validity of the note as an obligation binding on him at that time, so as to toll the operation of the statute.

The following cases are typical of many which…

Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Thomas v. BrewerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1880
  2. Union Stockyards National Bank of South Omaha v. MaikaWyoming Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Howard v. PritchettSupreme Court of Alabama · 1922
  4. Westinghouse Co. v. BoyleMichigan Supreme Court · 1901

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API