Whitmore v. Foose
Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors
Assumpsit, tried at the Livingston circuit in October, 1844, before Whiting, C. Judge. The action was on a promissory note, made by the defendant’s testator, and the defence relied on was the short statute of limitations provided by 2 R. S. 89, § 38, of which notice had been given under a plea of non assumpsit.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, tried at the Livingston circuit in October, 1844, before Whiting, C. Judge. The action was on a promissory note, made by the defendant’s testator, and the defence relied on was the short statute of limitations provided by 2 R. S. 89, § 38, of which notice had been given under a plea of non assumpsit. The note, which was for $70,90, was made on the 23d February, 1838, payable June 1st, 1839. The defendant took out letters testamentary on the 15th April, 1843, and on the 11th December, 1843, she as executrix, pursuant to § 34, (2 R. S. 88,) published a notice lequiring persons having…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Jewett, J.
The main question presented • by this bill of exceptions is, whether the plaintiff was barred of his claim at the expiration of six months from the time he presented it to the defendant, it being disputed or rejected by her, and not referred.
The bill of exceptions states that the plaintiff presented his claim before the time when the defendant first published a notice requiring persons having claims against the defendant’s testator to present them, &c. and that it was disputed and rejected by her, and not referred. It is insisted that under such circumstances the…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Tucker v. TuckerNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
- Matter of Application of HaxtunNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Tucker v. TuckerNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
- Douglass v. FolsomNevada Supreme Court · 1893
- Hardy v. AmesNew York Supreme Court · 1867
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.