Atwood v. Coburn
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit upon a note dated October 27, 1814, for $159, 88, payable to the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded in bar that the cause of action did not accrue within six years before the commencement of the action. The plaintiff replied, that the defendant did promise within six years, and, upon this, issue was joined.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon a note dated October 27, 1814, for $159, 88, payable to the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded in bar that the cause of action did not accrue within six years before the commencement of the action. The plaintiff replied, that the defendant did promise within six years, and, upon this, issue was joined. The cause was tried here at September term, 1827, when it appeared in evidence, that in the year 1820, the defendant said to one S. Hobbs, that he owed the debt and wished Hobbs to take up the note provided he could obtain it for $20. Hobbs told him he thought the note could not be…
1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, C. J.
We have decided that the acknowledgment of a subsisting debt does not take a case out of the statute of limitations, but that such acknowledgment is evidence from which a jury may, if there be notiiing to rebut it, presume a promise to pay which will take a case Out of the statute. 2 N. H. Rep. 425, Stanton v. Stanton; 3 B. & A. 141, Mount Stephen v. Brooks.
There are cases, in which it seems to have been held that a simple acknowledgment of a subsisting debt, would take a case out of the statute, although the party who made the acknowledgment expressed at the time an intention not to pay.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Sands v. GelstonNew York Supreme Court · 1818
- Mosher v. HubbardNew York Supreme Court · 1816
- Laurence v. HopkinsNew York Supreme Court · 1816
- Stanton v. StantonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1822
3Cited by2 opinions
- Exeter Bank v. SullivanSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1833
- Manning v. WheelerSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1843