¶1A question arises here whether the statute of limitations attaches to this suit. The action was commenced more than four years after defendant’s appointment and within the six months allowed to parties, in case the suit commenced within the proper time, has failed for any of the reasons allowed, to prevent the attachment of the statute of limitations. As to the former suit, it is proved that the attorney mistook the time of the sitting of the Court and did not enter his action, and the plaintiff now relies upon chap. 146, <§> 12, to sustain this new suit. In this section, several causes are specified which will enable a party to maintain an action, after the four years have expired, but among them all, is not enumerated the one here relied upon. If the plaintiff had himself made this mistake, it could not enable him to commence a new action, and one by his attorney would not make his case better. The Court cannot add to those therein enumerated. Nonsuit.
29 Me. 458
Packard v. Swallow
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Decided April 15, 1849
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1849-04-15
The plaintiff commenced this suit against the defendant, as executor, more than four years after his appointment, under these circumstances. Before the four years had elapsed, the plaintiff’s attorney brought an action upon the same demand, to the District Court, but after the writ was served and returned to his office, the attorney supposing the Court sat later than it did, omitted to enter the action, and this suit was com» menced in consequence of that omission.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1881
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1849-04-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →