Clark v. Howe
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
The action was assumpsit by Philo Clark, as administrator of the estate of Cyrus Clark, deceased. By the defendant the general issue and statute of limitations were pleaded. The action Was commenced Oct. 24, 1842. Cyrus Clark and Philo Clark had been partners in business in the name of Cyrus Clark & Son, until 1827, when the partnership was dissolved, “ and the said Cyrus settled up the business of the firm.”
Read the full summary
The action was assumpsit by Philo Clark, as administrator of the estate of Cyrus Clark, deceased. By the defendant the general issue and statute of limitations were pleaded. The action Was commenced Oct. 24, 1842. Cyrus Clark and Philo Clark had been partners in business in the name of Cyrus Clark & Son, until 1827, when the partnership was dissolved, “ and the said Cyrus settled up the business of the firm.” Cyrus Clark died in 1835, and Philo Clark is administrator on his estate. In the spring of 1834 the defendant called on Cyrus Clark to settle a note held against him by the firm, and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was by
WhitmaN C. J.
There is no doubt that this action should have been commenced by the plaintiff as the surviving partner of the firm of Cyrus Clark & Co. It was a debt due to that firm; and the liability has «ever been chquged by any agreement of the defendant with the plaintiff’s 'Intestate.
But the cause of action, if any exists, accrued in 1834; *562and the statute of limitations is set up in defence ; and more than six years had elapsed thereafter before this action was commenced. The cause of action did not depend, for its origin, on the discovery, by the members of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Gray v. GibsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1859
- Hargadine v. GibbonsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891