Hickok v. Bliss
New York Supreme Court
APPEAL by the defendant Bliss from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee. The action was brought for the recovery of the amount due on two promissory notes with interest, made by the defendants by the firm name of Campbell & Bliss—one of the notes being for "$673.50, due on the 13th day of May, 1852, the other for 398.75, due on the 6th day of June, 1852—and was commenced on the 1st day of February, 1859, by the service of a summons and complaint on the defendant…
Read the full summary
APPEAL by the defendant Bliss from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee. The action was brought for the recovery of the amount due on two promissory notes with interest, made by the defendants by the firm name of Campbell & Bliss—one of the notes being for "$673.50, due on the 13th day of May, 1852, the other for 398.75, due on the 6th day of June, 1852—and was commenced on the 1st day of February, 1859, by the service of a summons and complaint on the defendant Bliss. The referee found the following facts, viz : That in the month of Februaiy, 1852, the defendant Bliss went to San…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Continued residence here for six years is a bar, under the statute of limitations. Temporary absence from the state, without a change of residence, is not the ex*323.ception contained in the statute, and does not prevent the running of the statute during such absence.
[New York General Term, May 6, 1861.
The finding of the referee that the defendant was absent from the state by various journeys during six years, at least one year, in the aggregate, is not a sufficient finding of absence to warrant the judgment against the defendant.
Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered; costs to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Venable v. PauldingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1873
- Atkinson v. DuffySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1870
- Pitt v. AmendNew York Supreme Court · 1895
- Belknap v. SicklesNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1877