Coe v. Mason
New York Supreme Court
A PPEAL from a judgment rendered in favor of the plain-11. tiff upon the report of a referee appointed pursuant to section 41 of the revised statutes. (3 R. S. p. 175, 5th ed.) The plaintiff claimed upon a promissory note, and upon an account for work, labor and services performed by her for the defendants’ intestate.
Read the full summary
A PPEAL from a judgment rendered in favor of the plain-11. tiff upon the report of a referee appointed pursuant to section 41 of the revised statutes. (3 R. S. p. 175, 5th ed.) The plaintiff claimed upon a promissory note, and upon an account for work, labor and services performed by her for the defendants’ intestate. The referee reported the following facts found by him, viz: That William 0. Coe died in March, 1859, and that the defendants were duly appointed administrators of his goods, chattels and credits. That in the month of June, 1843, he executed and delivered to the plaintiff a…
1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.
The only question is whether the demand is barred by the statute of limitations. It is conceded that but for section 110 of the code the debt secured by the note in question was revived by the parol promises of the intestate, made in 1851 and 1856. That section is a part of title 2, and declares that “no acknowledgment or promise shall be sufficient evidence of a new or continuing contract whereby to take the cáse out of the operation of this title, unless the same be coütained in some writing signed by the party to be charged- thereby; but this section shall not alter the effect of any…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Winchell v. . HicksNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Van Alen v. FeltzNew York Supreme Court · 1859
- Gillespie v. RosekrantsNew York Supreme Court · 1855
- Winchell & Dunning v. BowmanNew York Supreme Court · 1856