Butterfield v. Jacobs
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit on a promissory note, dated on the 80th day of January, 1836, made by the defendant, and payable to the plaintiff, .on demand, with interest annually. The defendant pleaded the general issue and the statute of limitations. The plaintiff replied a new promise, within six years, upon which issue was joined.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on a promissory note, dated on the 80th day of January, 1836, made by the defendant, and payable to the plaintiff, .on demand, with interest annually. The defendant pleaded the general issue and the statute of limitations. The plaintiff replied a new promise, within six years, upon which issue was joined. To prove the new promise, the plaintiff introduced a witness, who testified that he was a deputy sheriff, and in the month of July or August, 1837, went with a writ on this demand to arrest the defendant, or attach his property. He found no property, and then told the defendant…
1Opinion of the CourtGilchrist, J.
There are authorities to be found in the books that the statute of limitations is founded on the presumption of payment; that whatever repels that presumption is an answer to the statute, and that any acknowledgment which repels that presumption, is, in legal effect, a promise to pay the debt; that though such an acknowledgment is accompanied by only a conditional promise, or even a refusal to pay, the law considers the condition or refusal void, and the acknowledgment itself an unconditional answer to the statute. Reference is made to those cases in Tanner vs. Smart, 6 B. & C. 603, which is…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Betton v. CuttsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1840
- Manning v. WheelerSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1843
3Cited by1 opinion
- First Cong. Soc. in Lyme v. MillerSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1844