Bullard v. Lopez
New Mexico Supreme Court
Motion for rehearing. The court states the case on the rehearing. The plea of non assumpsit infra sex annos does not apply in this case. It was bad in substance, and is not cured by the replication.
Read the full summary
Motion for rehearing. The court states the case on the rehearing. The plea of non assumpsit infra sex annos does not apply in this case. It was bad in substance, and is not cured by the replication. Hale v. Andrus, 6 Cowen, 230. The plea of actio non aeerevit infra sex annos is-necessary whenever the declaration contains a count on a cause of action which did not accrue until after the making of the contract. 3 Chitty, PI. 938. See, also, 1 Comyn’s Dig. 336; 2 Saunders, 63; 1 Modern Rep. 89; 2 Lord Raymond, 838; 3 Stark. 71. ■ The statute of limitation operates to extinguish, the remedy, but…
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, J.
In this case the motion for rehearing is made, not upon the main question decided by this court at the July, 1894, term thereof, but upon a question raised for the first time here, to wit, that the plea of the statute of limitations, being in form non assumpsit infra sex anuos, etc., presented no obstacle to the obtaining by plaintiff of a judgment in the court below. This court held at said term that such a plea was not a proper plea to an action on a promissory note falling due at a future date, and that, if demurrer had been interposed to the same, it should have been Promissory note:…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Soulden v. Van RensselaerNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- McCollister v. WilleyIndiana Supreme Court · 1876
- Mallory v. LamphearNew York Supreme Court · 1853
3Cited by1 opinion
- Petranovich v. FrkovichNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1945