Caldwell v. Ferrill
Supreme Court of Georgia
Assumpsit, in Eandolph Superior Court. Decided by ■Judge Kiddoo, May Term,' 1856. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Lawrence T. Ferrill against John H. Caldwell, on a note bearing date the 18th day of June, 1841. Defendant plead the Statute of Limitations.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, in Eandolph Superior Court. Decided by ■Judge Kiddoo, May Term,' 1856. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Lawrence T. Ferrill against John H. Caldwell, on a note bearing date the 18th day of June, 1841. Defendant plead the Statute of Limitations. On the trial, plaintiff introduced one Jesse B. Webb, who testified that he heard a conversation between plaintiff and defendant about the 1st of December, 1854, and ■defendant then verbally acknowledged that he owed the' note and agreed to pay it; and that the understanding between' the parties ivas, that plaintiff was to send…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
McDonald, J.
delivering the opinion.
The note was barred by the Statute of Limitations, at the time the promise was made, which is relied on to prevent the operation of the statutory bar. The promise was made about the 1st of December, 1854. The Act of 1854, Eeb. 20th,. requires such promises to be in writing. That Statute applies to such promises or acknowledgements only as are made subsequent to its enactment.
By some accident, this Act was not published with the *96Acts of the session to which it belongs, and is to be found in-the Pamphlet of the Laws of the Sessions 1855 and 1856.…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Buice v. Lowman Gold & Silver Mining Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1880
- Moore v. MooreSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898