Reyburn v. Casey
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Washington Circuit Court. I. The court erred in refusing the instruction asked. (6 How. 550; 1 Smith, 8; 1 Morr. 321; 15 Ohio, 130; 30 Maine, 118.) I. The receipt is no evidence of indebtedness. It is merely a receipt for money; there is no promise to pay, or admission of indebtedness. This is not an action or a written instrument for the payment of money.
1Opinion of the CourtEwing, Judge
This was an action on the following instrument, “ Received of H. Doane for Samuel A.- Reyburn, one hundred and eighty dollars. Potosí, November 16,1850. [Signed] J. H. Casey.”
The defendant "pleaded the statute of limitations, alleging that the action did not accrue within five years before the commencement of the suit. There was a judgment for the defendant; and motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment being overruled, plaintiff brings the cause to this court by appeal. The court was asked to declare the law to be that the lapse of five years was no bar to an action on the instrument…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Davis v. PackardCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1832
- Harrow v. DuganCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1838
3Cited by27 opinions
- International Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union v. SmithTexas Supreme Court · 1946
- Knisely v. LeatheSupreme Court of Missouri · 1914
- International Printing Pressmen & Assitant's Union of North America v. SmithTexas Supreme Court · 1946
- Hercules Exploration, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1983
- O'Brien v. KingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.