Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

116 Pa. 551

Boustead v. Cuyler

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 4, 1887

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1887-04-04

No. 356 January Term 1885, Supt. Ct.; court below, No. 77 June Term 1878, C. P. No. 4. The action in the court below was assumpsit upon the following writing: November 13, 1868. I have in my hands to the credit of John Boustead, executor of Sarah and also of James Boustead, thirty-one hundred and eight dollars payable to him as such executor, on demand with interest at six per cent, until paid. (Signed) Theo. Cuyler. The narr. contained eight counts: 1.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1887-04-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently June 1965

16 state decisions

70188718901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

Per Curiam:

¶1The plaintiff declared on a “ promissory note or due bill.” It is payable on demand. It is therefore evidence of a present debt. It is due and demandable immediately. The commencement of a suit is a sufficient demand. No demand is necessary as a condition precedent to a right of action: Andress’ Appeal, 99 Penn. St. 421; Milne’s Appeal, Idem 483; Smith v. Bell, 107 Idem 352. It follows that this due bill on its face was barred by the statute of limitations before suit brought. The main body of the note was in the handwriting of the maker. It was however altered in a material part, admittedly not in his handwriting, .by adding “ with interest at 6 per cent, until paid.” No evidence explaining this alteration was given. The plaintiff executor did not become a .competent witness, as his wife was so interested as to be clearly incompetent.

¶2Judgment affirmed.

/116/pa/551 · .json · Public domain