Colt v. Cone
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract by the executors of the will of William Pollock, on a promissory note of the defendant, dated December 9, 1857, for $6494.11, payable on demand, to his own order, with interest, by him indorsed in blank, bearing indorsements of the receipt of interest up to April 1, 1862, and also the following indorsement, signed by Pollock: “ $5,133.33. April 23, 1863. Received on the within note, this date, five thousand one hundred thirty-three dollars, thirty-three cents.”
Read the full summary
Contract by the executors of the will of William Pollock, on a promissory note of the defendant, dated December 9, 1857, for $6494.11, payable on demand, to his own order, with interest, by him indorsed in blank, bearing indorsements of the receipt of interest up to April 1, 1862, and also the following indorsement, signed by Pollock: “ $5,133.33. April 23, 1863. Received on the within note, this date, five thousand one hundred thirty-three dollars, thirty-three cents.” Writ dated October 7,1867. The defendant answered on February 11, 1868, admitting that he was the maker of the note, that…
1Opinion of the CourtGbay, J.
The rulings upon the defendant’s right to recover under his declaration in set-off were correct. The statute of set-off declares that “ if any law for the limitation of actions ” (thus clearly including the special statute of limitation of actions against executors and administrators, as well as the general statute of limitations) “is alleged by way of defence to the defendant’s demand, the limitation shall be applied in the same manner as it would have been to an action brought on the same *289demand if it had been commenced at the time when the plaintiffs’ action was commenced.” Gen. Sts. c.…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
- Tyler v. BoyceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883