Krebs v. Olmstead
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract for professional services rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant in February and March, 1876. Writ dated December 23, 1882. Answer, the statute of limitations. Trial in the Superior Court, before Brigham, C. J., who ruled that the action'could not be maintained, and directed a verdict for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions. The facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, C. J.
The general rules of law applicable to this case are well settled in this Commonwealth. As the plaintiff’s original cause of action accrued more than six years before his suit was commenced, it is incumbent upon him, in answer to the defence of the statute of limitations, to prove a new promise in writing, either absolute or conditional, by the defendant within six years. This he may do by showing a direct and express written promise by the defendant to pay the debt, made within six years, or by showing an acknowledgment in writing by the defendant that the debt was due, made under such…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Flippin v. HaysCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1860
- Weston v. HodgkinsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1884
3Cited by12 opinions
- Gillingham v. BrownMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
- Custy v. DonlanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
- Westminster National Bank v. GrausteinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930
- Glidden v. ChamberlinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- Barber v. RathvonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.