Robinson v. Burton
Supreme Court of Delaware
Writ of error to the Superior Court for Sussex County-. Before Harrington, Chancellor, Gilpin, Chief Justice, and Wootten, Justice. The case below was an action of assumpsit on a promisspry note from Nathaniel Ingram to Thomas Eobinson, the defendant below, dated August 8th, 1840, payable twelve months after date, for $500, and by Ingram indorsed to Woolsey Burton, the plaintiff below.
Read the full summary
Writ of error to the Superior Court for Sussex County-. Before Harrington, Chancellor, Gilpin, Chief Justice, and Wootten, Justice. The case below was an action of assumpsit on a promisspry note from Nathaniel Ingram to Thomas Eobinson, the defendant below, dated August 8th, 1840, payable twelve months after date, for $500, and by Ingram indorsed to Woolsey Burton, the plaintiff below. Upon the note was indorsed a credit, of the date of the 2d of May, 1842, of, $59.65 for interest, and of $240.83 on the principal. The only defence relied upon by the defendant was the plea of the statute of…
1Opinion of the Court
Harrington, Ch.,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
It was decided by this Court, in Newlin v. Duncan, 1 Harr. Rep. 207, in conformity with the uniform decisions and practice, that an acknowledgment of a debt as a subsisting demand will take it out of the act of limitations, without an express promise to pay it. There has been no vacillation in the courts on this principle, but some conflict in its application to the facts in each case. In Waples v. Layton & Sipple, 3 Harr. Rep. 509, where the defendant, Waples, neither denied nor admitted the debt in terms, but re*545marked that there were other…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Peckham v. Industrial Securities Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1921
- Bernhand v. EnnisSuperior Court of Delaware · 1927
- Terry v. American Fruit Growers, Inc.Superior Court of Delaware · 1925