Dunlop v. Alexander's Administrator
District Court, District of Columbia
This was an action for a British debt contracted before 1775, for goods sold to the defendant’s intestate by a British factor; the balance was agreed in 1784, and acknowledged often afterwards as a just debt. The counsel agreed that the statute of limitations might be given in evidence on non assumpsit, if it could avail if pleaded specially.
Read the full summary
This was an action for a British debt contracted before 1775, for goods sold to the defendant’s intestate by a British factor; the balance was agreed in 1784, and acknowledged often afterwards as a just debt. The counsel agreed that the statute of limitations might be given in evidence on non assumpsit, if it could avail if pleaded specially. The statute of limitations is one of the legal impediments to the recovery of debts, which were removed by the treaty of peace, and the convention of 1802. Hopkirk v. Bell, 3 Craneh, 454, and 4 Craneh, 164, et seq.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court
was of opinion, under the authority of the two cases of Hopkirk v. Bell, in February term, 1806, and 1807, 3 Cranch, 454, and 4 Cranch, 164, that the statute of limitations is no bar ; it being a legal impediment removed by the treaty of peace and the convention of 1802.
The Court said that the correct way of settling interest accounts, is, in case the payment is equal to, or exceeds the interest, to add interest to principal up to the time of the. payment, and deduct the payment from the sum of interest and principal; but if the payment does not equal or exceed the interest, the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hopkirk v. BellSupreme Court of the United States · 1806
- Hopkirk v. BellSupreme Court of the United States · 1807