Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 Blackf. 75

Neighbors v. Simmons

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 17, 1827

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1827-05-17

<p>At the foot óf án account containing several items, charged in 1817, there was the following acknowledgment,—UI acknowledge the above account to be just,—Tho. NeighborsHeld, that this acknowledgment was a written contract which, under tiré act of assembly, was not barred by the statute of limitations.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1827-05-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1899

3 state decisions

1018271830184018501860187018801890decided

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 →

Holman, J.

¶1Assumpsit by Simmons against Neighbors. The declaration states that the defendant, on the 14th of April, 1817, made his certain acknowledgment in writing, whereby he acknowledged that he was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of 112 dollars and 62 cents, whereby he became liable, &c., and in consideration thereof promised to pay, &c. Plea non-assumpsit within five years. Demurrer and judgment for the plaintiff.

¶2The contract, on which the action is founded, is ah account of sundry items in favour of Simmons against Neighbors, amounting to 112 dollars and 62 cents; the first item of which bears date the 20th of January, 1817, and the last item the 14th of April, in the same year; at the foot of which there is this writing,—“I acknowledge the above account to be just.—Thos. Neighbors.” The act of assembly provides, that no statute of limitations shall be pleaded as a bar, or operate as such, to any action founded on an instrument or contract in writing, whether the same be sealed or unsealed (1). We are of opinion that the written acknowledgment of this account forms a contract in writing; and that the plea of the statute of limitations, in this case, was inadmissible.

¶3With the refusal of the Circuit Court to continue the cause we have nothing to do: the affidavit to continue the cause is no part of the record.

Per Curiam.

¶4The judgment is affirmed with lper cení, damages and costs.

¶5 R. C. 1824, p. 291. Acc. R. C. 1831, p. 401.

/2/blackf/75 · .json · Public domain