Thomas v. Glendinning
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from the judgment of the district court of the Third district, Territory of Utah, Hotu. George W. Bartcb, Judge. Mr. Buswell in his work on Limitations, section 42, says: “The law as clearly laid down by the modern authorities may be stated in the following propositions: 1— A debt barred by the statute of limitations may be revived by a new promise. 2 — Such promise may be expressed or implied. 3 — An implied promise is created only by a clear and unqualified…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the judgment of the district court of the Third district, Territory of Utah, Hotu. George W. Bartcb, Judge. Mr. Buswell in his work on Limitations, section 42, says: “The law as clearly laid down by the modern authorities may be stated in the following propositions: 1— A debt barred by the statute of limitations may be revived by a new promise. 2 — Such promise may be expressed or implied. 3 — An implied promise is created only by a clear and unqualified acknowledgment, equivalent to a new promise. It must be absolute, unconditional and not controlled by other language.” It cannot…
1Opinion of the Court
Miner, J.:
Plaintiff, Thomas, alleged in bis complaint, in substance, that on July 1, 1883, be delivered to the defendant, C-lendinning, at bis request, for safe-keeping, the sum of $4,321, belonging to the plaintiff, to be safely and securely kept by defendant for the plaintiff, and which sum was to be redelivered to plaintiff on demand; that *50on the 1st day of October, 1883, the plaintiff demanded a a redelivery of the money from . the defendant, and that defendant had not safely kept the same, but that said amount was lost and destroyed through the negligence and carelessness of the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Campbell v. Laclede Gas Light Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Luco v. De ToroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Brown v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- The Bank of San Luis Obispo v. WickershamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Fox v. TayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- In Re Hoopiiaina TrustUtah Supreme Court · 2006
- Crofoot v. ThatcherUtah Supreme Court · 1899
- Smith v. North Canyon Water Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1898
- Territory of Oklahoma, Ex Rel. Taylor v. CaffreySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1899
- Mattis v. HosmerOregon Supreme Court · 1900
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.