Russell & Co. v. Davis
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant D. Davis from a judgment of the District Court of Nobles County, P. E. Brown, J., entered in favor of the plaintiff Russell & Co., a corporation, upon two promissory notes made to it by defendants D. Davis and Bennett Evans. The facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
The acknowledgment which is relied on to toll the statute of limitations as to the two notes in suit is as follows:
“This note and the one attached to it are all right, and I think I can pay one hundred dollars on them, any way, next fall. Dated this March 26th, 1887.
[Signed] “D. Davis.”
The inflexible rule of this court, which is in accordance with the general current of authorities elsewhere, is that, to take a case out of the statute of limitations, there must be either an express promise to pay or an unqualified and unconditional acknowledgment of the debt from which a promise is implied.
As…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Bell v. MorrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
- Brisbin v. FarmerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1871
- Ward v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Whitney v. Reese & HeylinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1866
- Denny v. MarrettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Albachten v. BradleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1942
- First National Bank v. SchirmerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- Olson v. MyrlandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1935
- Big Diamond Milling Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. OsvenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1940
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.