Christy v. Flemington
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Philadelphia. March 9. Assumpsit. Plea, the statute of limitations, replication, assumpsit infrá, &c. The evidence was the defendant’s sworn petition for the benefit of the insolvent laws. In the accompanying schedule was the following :— “It. F. Christy, borrowed money, $75.” Parsons, J., directed a verdict for defendant.
1Opinion of the CourtCoulter, J.
The acknowledgment on which the plaintiff relies, to take the case out of the statute of limitations, is contained in the schedule attached to the petition of the defendant in error for the benefit of the insolvent laws. This acknowledgment, without aid or help from any other evidence of the debt, is relied upon, on the plea of non assumpsit; and, also, on the plea of non assumpsit infrá sex annos. If it is a good and valid acknowledgment of a debt, and not inconsistent with a promise to pay, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover. But we must consider the object and design of the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- In Re PovillCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939
- O'Donnell v. ParkerUtah Supreme Court · 1916
- Spangler v. SpanglerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Sawyer Boot & Shoe Co. v. BravemanSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1927