Legal Opinion

Trask v. Weeks

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided February 18, 1889PublishedCited by 8 opinions

On report. The action, which was assumpsit, on account annexed, was to stand for trial, if in the opinion of the law court it could be maintained. Agreement contains two elements; a waiver of the statute of limitations, and a new promise. Defendant perpetually estopped from setting up the statute. The agreement is a perpetual bar to its operation.

Read the full summary

On report. The action, which was assumpsit, on account annexed, was to stand for trial, if in the opinion of the law court it could be maintained. Agreement contains two elements; a waiver of the statute of limitations, and a new promise. Defendant perpetually estopped from setting up the statute. The agreement is a perpetual bar to its operation. Warren v. Walker, 28 Maine, 458, and cases there cited, approved in Modgdon v. Chase, 29 Maine, 47, 50. Agreement not to plead the statute, held to operate as an estoppel. Utica Ins. Co. v. Bloodgood, 4 Wend. 652; Lowry v. Dubois, 2 Bailey (S. C.),…

1Opinion of the CourtDaneobth, J.

It is conceded that this action cannot be maintained against the defendant, William Weeks. The result as to the other defendant must depend upon the construction of the following written contract, viz:

“Whereas Abiel Trask of Jefferson has unsettled accounts against William Weeks and myself wlfich it is not convenient to settle at this time, now I hereby agree to waive any and all objection to said accounts, which might be brought agaiñst them on account of the statute of limitations, and hereby renew the promise to pay whatever balance shall be against us.” This contract was dated March 20,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Kellogg v. DickinsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Parchen v. ChessmanMontana Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Union Central Life Ins. v. SpinksCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1904
  3. Bridges v. StephensSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
  4. Forbach v. SteinfeldArizona Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Hornick v. First Catholic Slovak UnionSupreme Court of Kansas · 1924

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API