Hirst v. Brooks
New York Supreme Court
11HIS action was brought upon two promissory notes made . by the defendants, and payable to the plaintiff on demand, with interest.
Read the full summary
11HIS action was brought upon two promissory notes made . by the defendants, and payable to the plaintiff on demand, with interest. One was dated November 17, 1841, and the other February 28, 1842. The action was commenced in May, 1866. Interest was paid and indorsed on the notes in February, 1844; but- no interest or principal was subsequently paid on either note ; and no actual demand of payment of the notes was made of the defendants (who made the notes) until just previous to the time the action was commenced. The defense to the action was the statute of limitations. The action was tried…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Balcom, J.
The question in this case is whether the statute of limitations commenced to run on the notes, upon which the action is founded, at the time interest was paid on the notes, in February, 1844, or not until the plaintiff actually demanded payment of the notes of the defendants, just previous to the time the action was commenced, in 1866. A period exceeding twenty years elapsed between the date of the payment of interest upon the notes and the time the plaintiff demanded payment of the same of the defendants, in 1866; during which period nothing was paid upon the notes,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Payne v. . GardinerNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
- Haxton v. BishopNew York Supreme Court · 1829
- Merritt v. . ToddNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- Howland v. . EdmondsNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Payne v. SlateNew York Supreme Court · 1863
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Pardee v. FishNew York Supreme Court · 1873
- Compton v. ElliottThe Superior Court of New York City · 1882
- Herrick v. . WoolvertonNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- McMullen v. RaffertyNew York Supreme Court · 1881