Seward v. Hayden
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract against the defendant, as a surety on a promissory note of which W. M. Hayden was the maker, dated September 7, 1881, payable on demand to Seward and Willard, and bearing the following ‘indorsements: “ Received of W. M. Hayden five dollars, September 7,1881. December 12, 1882. Received ten dollars.” Writ dated September 7, 1887. The answer set up, among other defences, the statute of limitations.
Read the full summary
Contract against the defendant, as a surety on a promissory note of which W. M. Hayden was the maker, dated September 7, 1881, payable on demand to Seward and Willard, and bearing the following ‘indorsements: “ Received of W. M. Hayden five dollars, September 7,1881. December 12, 1882. Received ten dollars.” Writ dated September 7, 1887. The answer set up, among other defences, the statute of limitations. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after judgment for the defendant, to this court, on appeal, on agreed facts, in substance as follows. The plaintiff, as surviving partner…
1Opinion of the CourtKnowlton, J.
This case presents for consideration the single question whether, in an action upon a promissory note payable on demand, the day of the date is to be excluded • or included in reckoning the six years named in the statute of limitations. By the first of these modes of reckoning a payee would ordinarily have a few hours more, and by the second a few hours less, than six years within which to bring his suit. But in computing time under statutes and contracts the law disregards fractions of a day, unless on account of the subject matter, or for other important reasons, justice requires that they…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Sheets v. Selden's LesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
- Bemis v. LeonardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Cornell v. MoultonNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Fenno v. GayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Warren v. SladeMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Nebola v. Minnesota Iron Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- McGlue v. Weekly Publications, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1946
- Sturdivant v. McCorleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Kelly v. Independent Publishing Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1912
- Grant v. PaddockOregon Supreme Court · 1897
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.