Delaplaine v. Crowninshield
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts
Assumpsit on several counts: (1) Money had and received. (2) On a promissory note dated at New York, on the 23d of March 1811, payable to plaintiff [John F. Delaplaine] or order on the 15th of July then next. (3, 4, and 5) On like notes for like sums, payable on the 1st and on the 15th of August then next, and on the 1st of September then next. Pleas: (1) Non assumpsit. (2) Statute of limitations of Massachusetts specially set forth.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on several counts: (1) Money had and received. (2) On a promissory note dated at New York, on the 23d of March 1811, payable to plaintiff [John F. Delaplaine] or order on the 15th of July then next. (3, 4, and 5) On like notes for like sums, payable on the 1st and on the 15th of August then next, and on the 1st of September then next. Pleas: (1) Non assumpsit. (2) Statute of limitations of Massachusetts specially set forth. (3) Same plea, setting forth generally actio non accrevit (4) Same plea generally, and no promise within six years. (5) Statute of limitations of New York, and…
1Opinion of the Court
STORY, Circuit Justice.
Whatever may be the case as to the other pleas, the plea of the statute of limitations of Massachusetts is a complete bar to the present suit, unless the matter set up in the replication is sufficient to avoid it. In my judgment, it is wholly insufficient. There is no case where the statute is stopped by the commencement of an action, mil ess that action is kept alive after the first process is returned, by continuances, and is the same suit to which the statute is pleaded as a bar. A suit commenced, and-afterwards discontinued, will not aid the plaintiff in another…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Elder v. McClaskeyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1895
- Hill v. PipkinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904
- Johnson v. MeadMichigan Supreme Court · 1889