Floyd v. Pearce
Mississippi Supreme Court
Error to the Circuit Court of Warren County. Hon. Upton M. Young, Judge. A. verbal acknowledgment of the correctness of an existing account is sufficient to make an account stated, but, to deprive the debtor of the benefit of the Statute of Limitations, the acknowledgment must be written.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Warren County. Hon. Upton M. Young, Judge. A. verbal acknowledgment of the correctness of an existing account is sufficient to make an account stated, but, to deprive the debtor of the benefit of the Statute of Limitations, the acknowledgment must be written. In England the doctrine was first announced shortly after the passage of Lord Tenterden’s Act, which is the original of all the American statutes on new promises, including Code 1871, § 2165, and it is still followed in that country. Williams v. Griffiths, 2 Cr. M. & R. 45; Gottam v. Partridge, 11 L. J. (N.…
1Opinion of the CourtChalmers, J.
The plaintiff below (defendant in error) counted in his declaration upon an open account and upon an account stated. At •the trial, he dismissed his first count, and relied solely upon the account stated. In support of it, he proved by one witness that he, the witness, had seen the account sued on presented to the defendant’s testator in his lifetime, and by him admitted to be correct. The court instructed the jury that, if they believed this to be so, the case was governed as to the period of limitation by the six years’ statute applicable to express contracts, and not by the three years’…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Chace v. TraffordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Weatherwax v. Cosumnes Valley Mill Co.California Supreme Court · 1861
- McCall v. NaveMississippi Supreme Court · 1876
- Reinhardt v. HinesMississippi Supreme Court · 1875
3Cited by2 opinions
- Stephenson v. Louisiana Oil Refining Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1938
- W. T. Raleigh Co. v. FortenberryMississippi Supreme Court · 1925