Whitney v. Bigelow
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was assumpsit upon two promissory notes, one for 444 dollars 44 cents, the other for 333 dollars 33 cents, made by the defendant on the 3d of April, 1817, payable to Francis Farr or order, and indorsed to the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations. The plaintiff replied that the defendant had promised within six years.
Read the full summary
This was assumpsit upon two promissory notes, one for 444 dollars 44 cents, the other for 333 dollars 33 cents, made by the defendant on the 3d of April, 1817, payable to Francis Farr or order, and indorsed to the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations. The plaintiff replied that the defendant had promised within six years. The writ was dated May 5th, 1824. At the trial, it appeared, that the defendant purchased of Joseph Whitney, now deceased, a farm, for which he gave these notes and several others, viz. one for 428 dollars 88 cents, two for 111 dollars 12 cents each,…
1Opinion of the Court
Parker C. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court. This cause has properly been put by the counsel upon the question, whether the verdict can be sustained upon the principle declared in the case of Bangs v. Hall; for the Court are by no means disposed to shake that case, it having been decided on very great deliberation, and after a thorough examination of the multitude of cases which have sprung out of the statute of limitations.
The principle of the case of Bangs v. Hall is, that to take a contract out of the statute of limitations, there must be an acknowledgment of indebtedness, or an…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Davenport v. ComstockAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898