Coffin v. Bucknam
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Assumpsit, upon two promissory notes, one of which was dated April 6, 1825, given by tbe defendant to Joseph Wilson, and by bim indorsed to the plaintiff’s intestate. The writ was dated August 8, 1833. The defendant pleaded the general issue and the statute of limitations.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, upon two promissory notes, one of which was dated April 6, 1825, given by tbe defendant to Joseph Wilson, and by bim indorsed to the plaintiff’s intestate. The writ was dated August 8, 1833. The defendant pleaded the general issue and the statute of limitations. To avoid this defence, the plaintiff relied upon an indorsement of four dollars upon the note, purporting to have been made December 16, 182S, and in the handwriting of the intestate, who died in June, 1829, as evidence of a new promise. There was no evidence other than as above, of the time when said indorsement was…
1Opinion of the Court
Weston C. J.
—The modern doctrine, as to what is necessary to take a case out of the statute of limitations, will be found laid down in Perley v. Little, 3 Greenl. 97 ; Porter v. Hill, 4 Greenl. 41, and in Bangs v. Hall, 2 Pick. 374. We refer to these cases as presenting a very satisfactory elucidation of the statute, and the effect to be given to it. In Whitney v. Bigelow, 4 Pick. 110, the court in Massachusetts express their determination to adhere to the principles decided in Bangs v. Hall, which are in accordance with the law as settled here. But they further proceed to state, that no set…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Smith v. HansonUtah Supreme Court · 1908
- Loewer v. HaugMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886