Conway's Exr. v. Reyburn's Exrs.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Hempstead Circuit Court in Chancery. Hon. L. B. GaEEW, Circuit Judge. It is sufficient to remove the bar of the statute, if the acknowledgment be of a debt due in whole or in part; and a promise to pay will be implied from the admission of a subsisting indebtedness. 4 Eng. 457; 5 Eng. 136,137; 7 Eng. 764; 6 Eng. 670; 18 Ark. 522; 4 Hump. 183; Barnard vs. Bartholomew, 22 Pick. 294; 2 Dev. 4 Batt. Ch. R. 82; 2 Hill's Ch. R. 87; 9 Md. Rep. 52; 38 Eng.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Hempstead Circuit Court in Chancery. Hon. L. B. GaEEW, Circuit Judge. It is sufficient to remove the bar of the statute, if the acknowledgment be of a debt due in whole or in part; and a promise to pay will be implied from the admission of a subsisting indebtedness. 4 Eng. 457; 5 Eng. 136,137; 7 Eng. 764; 6 Eng. 670; 18 Ark. 522; 4 Hump. 183; Barnard vs. Bartholomew, 22 Pick. 294; 2 Dev. 4 Batt. Ch. R. 82; 2 Hill's Ch. R. 87; 9 Md. Rep. 52; 38 Eng. Law «f* Eq. 487; 1 Cromp. df Mees. 623; 1 Man. S¡Gr. 54; 24 Conn. 73.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Fairchild
The brief for the appellant is as follows: “ The decree is “ erroneous because in this case there is no such promise either express or to be implied from the part payment, as will take “ the case out of the statute of limitations. An acknowledg- “ ment by the debtor of an indefinite balance due on the claim “ Will not save the bar of the statute as fo any amount what- “ ever. Harrison vs. Philler, 32 Miss. 257; Bell vs. Morrison, 1 “ Peters 357; Sutton vs. Burrus 9 Leigh 381; Aylett vs. Robinson, “ Ib. 45; Smallwood vs. Smallwood, 2 Dev. & Batt. 330; Magee vs. “ Magee, 10 Watts. 172; Anderson…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Anderson v. RobertsonCourt of Appeals of Mississippi · 1852
- Marr's v. Southwick, Cannon & WarrenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1835
- Franklin Fire Insurance v. HamillCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1847
- Magee v. MageeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840
- Commonwealth v. CloptonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1837
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Street Improvement District No. 113 of Hot Springs v. MooneySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1942
- Arkansas Valley Trust Co. v. YoungSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- Big Diamond Milling Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Rhodes v. DriverSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Clemmons v. Clemmons, Admr.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1939
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.