Prescott v. Town of Vershire
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit for the amount of a town order. Plea, the general issue, payment, and the statute of limitations. The plaintiff traversed the first two pleas, and to the last replied a new promise. Trial by jury at the June term, 1890, Tyler, J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant, excepts.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for the amount of a town order. Plea, the general issue, payment, and the statute of limitations. The plaintiff traversed the first two pleas, and to the last replied a new promise. Trial by jury at the June term, 1890, Tyler, J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant, excepts. The order was dated September 10, 1879, and the writ in the cause was issued March 21, 1887. In order to remove the bar of .the statute of limitations the plaintiff- was permitted to show that for the years 1881, 1882, 1883, 1884 and 1885 the town auditors stated in their report to…
1Opinion of the Court
*519The opinion of the court was delivered by
ROWELL, J.
An acknowledgment, in order to remove the statutory bar, must be such that a promise to pay the debt can be implied from it. The mere acknowledgment of an existing indebtedness is not enough, as that is consistent with a refusal to pay or a determination to take advantage of thei statute. The acknowledgment must be of such a character and made in such circumstances as to indicate or be consistent with a willingness to remain liable. Brayton v. Rockwell, 41 Vt. 621.
To say nothing of whether the “ acknowledgment or promise is in writing, signed…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brayton v. RockwellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1869
3Cited by2 opinions
- Woodsville Guaranty Savings Bank v. RickerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1912
- Town of St. George v. TilleySupreme Court of Vermont · 1914