Montgomery v. Cunningham

Decided October 19, 1883

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1883-10-19

Eeeoe to the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana county: Of October and November Term 1883, No. 112. Assumpsit, brought February 3rd 1880, by John Montgomery against William Cunningham, to recover a sum of money alleged to have been paid by plaintiff as surety for defendant on a note which matured in 1851, and also a sum alleged to have been loaned by plaintiff to defendant, in 1854.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1883-10-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1915

4 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the court was filed October 29th 1883.

Per Curiam.

¶2The refusal of a motion to strike out evidence received without objection, is not the snbjeet of a bill of exceptions: Ashton v. Sproule, 11 Casey 492; Oswald v. Kennedy, 12 Wright 9; Yeager v. Weaver, 14 P. F. Smith 425. Moreover the parol evidence referred to in the first specification of error, was followed by the certificate of discharge being given in evidence.

¶3The plaintiff has no just cause of complaint-with the charge of the court as to the evidence of the kind of admission necessary to take the case out of the operation of the statute of limitations. The acknowledgment must be clear, distinct and unequivocal: Palmer v. Gillespie, 14 Norris 340. It must be such that a promise is clearly implied: Id. We see no error to correct.

¶4Judgment affirmed..