Oliver v. Berry
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Assumpsit on a promissory note given to the plaintiff for his personal labor in the defendant’s saw mill. Defence,— statute of limitations. The plaintiff was proved to have been deaf and dumb from infancy. He was able to labor, but no evidence was offered to prove that he possessed sufficient intelligence to know and comprehend his legal rights and liabilities.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on a promissory note given to the plaintiff for his personal labor in the defendant’s saw mill. Defence,— statute of limitations. The plaintiff was proved to have been deaf and dumb from infancy. He was able to labor, but no evidence was offered to prove that he possessed sufficient intelligence to know and comprehend his legal rights and liabilities. There was evidence tending to prove that the defendant had made payments upon the note in suit within six years before the action was commenced; but the jury returned a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff’s counsel moved to…
1Opinion of the CourtWalton, J.
The statute of limitations does not run against a person deaf, and dumb, unless he is shown to possess sufficient intelligence to know and comprehend his legal rights and liabilities. The improved method of educating such persons, adopted at the present day, develops in them a higher degree of intelligence than it was formerly supposed they possessed; but, nevertheless, as the want of hearing and speech must necessarily prevent a full development of their intellectual powers, and place them at a great disadvantage in their dealings with others, the law throws around them for their protection…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brower v. FisherNew York Court of Chancery · 1820
3Cited by2 opinions
- Chasse v. MazerolleSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1990
- Smith v. BayrightNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1881