Chambers v. Rubey
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Sixth District Court. To say that the acknowledgment must be one of a subsisting debt which the party is ready and willing to pay, is to say that the acknowledgment must in terms also show a promise to pay. If that be so, then there is really no distinction between an acknowledgment and a promise.
Read the full summary
Error to Sixth District Court. To say that the acknowledgment must be one of a subsisting debt which the party is ready and willing to pay, is to say that the acknowledgment must in terms also show a promise to pay. If that be so, then there is really no distinction between an acknowledgment and a promise. The statute (Gen. Stat. 1865, p. 749, § 28) evidently intended to make such a distinction; and the true statement of the rule is that it must be such an acknowledgment as does not rebut the presumption of an intention to pay. (41 Mo. 264.) It can not be said that defendant’s letter was an…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
The plaintiff brought his action in the Louisiana Court of Common Pleas, on the 21st day of April, 1869, on account of goods sold to the defendant in April, 1856. The defense was the statute of limitations. Replication, a new promise by which the case was taken out of the statute, etc.; upon issue joined, judgment was given for the defendant.
The writing by which the bar of the statute was sought to be avoided was a letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff, dated March 3, 1866, in which he says: “By dint of hard labor for the last few years, I have saved, besides supporting my family,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Boyd v. HurlbutSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
3Cited by10 opinions
- Bridges v. StephensSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- Chidsey v. PowellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Monroe v. HerringtonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Green v. BootheMissouri Court of Appeals · 1945
- Mastin v. BranhamSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.