Van Alen v. Feltz
New York Court of Appeals
The action was brought by the plaintiff, as assignee upon two judgments rendered in a justice’s court in favor of George W. Bulkley and Gersham Bulkley, against the defendant on the 18th of April 1846; one for §101.15, and the other for $76.15. These judgments were duly assigned to the plaintiff on the 31st of March, 1856. This action was commenced July 10th, 1856. The defense was the statute of limitations.
Read the full summary
The action was brought by the plaintiff, as assignee upon two judgments rendered in a justice’s court in favor of George W. Bulkley and Gersham Bulkley, against the defendant on the 18th of April 1846; one for §101.15, and the other for $76.15. These judgments were duly assigned to the plaintiff on the 31st of March, 1856. This action was commenced July 10th, 1856. The defense was the statute of limitations. The action was tried at the Columbia Circuit in September 1857, without a jury, by Justice D. Weight, who found as matter of fact upon the evidence, that in June, 1852, the defendant in…
1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.
When the Code went into operation, the right of action had already accrued upon both judgments, and the only question presented by the case, is, whether a written promise, in such a case, is necessary to take the demand out of the operation of the statute, rio question is made but that the promise would have been sufficient before the Code. Section 110 of the Code provides that “no acknowledgment, or promise shall be sufficient evidence of a new or continuing contract whereby to take the case out of the operation of this title, unless the same be contained in some writing signed by the party…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Winchell v. . HicksNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- In re BookhoutNew York Supreme Court · 1856
3Cited by3 opinions
- Lansing v. . BlairNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Fletcher v. UpdikeNew York Supreme Court · 1875
- Prindle v. BeveridgeNew York Supreme Court · 1872