Horner v. Starkey
Illinois Supreme Court
The plaintiffs in error filed the two notes sued on in this case, in the County Court of Monroe county, for allowance in the case of the decedent. The County Court refused to allow the claim.
Read the full summary
The plaintiffs in error filed the two notes sued on in this case, in the County Court of Monroe county, for allowance in the case of the decedent. The County Court refused to allow the claim. The plaintiffs in error took an appeal to the Circuit Court, where the cause was tried by the court without a jury, Omelveny, Judge, presiding, at May term, 1861, the court affirming the judgment of the County Court, and sustaining the plea of the statute of limitations interposed by the defendant. On the trial, the plaintiffs introduced a promissory note under seal, dated November 14, 1838, made by Wm.…
1Opinion of the CourtCaton, C. J.
Here is not a simple admission or recognition of the existence of the debt, leaving us to infer a promise to pay, in order to take it out of the statute of limitations, but we have a direct promise to pay it, not then, it is true, but in the future. The maker of the notes said, if the payee would wait a while, he would pay them. He said he was not in a condition then to pay them, but that when he made a raise he would do so. This the defendant insists was a conditional promise, to be performed upon the happening of an event, which is not shown to have transpired. Much as we are disinclined to…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Richardson v. BrickerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1883
- Sennott v. Horner & HypesIllinois Supreme Court · 1863
- Benton v. BentonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1908
- Walker v. FreemanIllinois Supreme Court · 1904
- Boone v. A'HernAppellate Court of Illinois · 1901
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.