presiding. This was an action of assumpsit, commenced before a Justice of the Peace, in March, 1848, and brought by appeal to Gaston Superior Court of Law. On the trial the plaintiff introduced a witness, and shewed him the account, for the recovery of which this suit was brought.
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 1918
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
¶1
To repel the statute of limitations, a promise to pay must be proven — either express or implied. The law will always imply a promise, when there is an acknowledgdment of a subsisting debt, unless there be something to rebut the implication. If one pays a debt in part, the law implies a promise to pay the balance, in the absence
of
any circumstance to negative such a promise.
¶2
This being the general rule, the question is, whether there was evidence to bring this case within
its
operation. The judge below thought there was not. We have come to a different conclusion.
¶3
A copy of the account was shewn to the defendant and she was requested to settle it. She said, “ she bad no money, but would call in a few days and settle it with the old man. She did not intend to cut him out ol it.” The delendant had a direct reference to the account, which was drawn off and handed to her ; and, although, at the first conversation, there was some objection made to the price of one item, we think there was an explicit acknowledgment of a subsisting- debt, from which a promise to pay will be implied ; if, indeed, there was not evidence of an express promise, having sufficient certainty to support an action, by aid of the maxim,
“id certum est, quod certum reddi potest.
¶4
The direct reference to the
stated account
distinguishes this from
Peebles
v. Mason,
2
Dev. 367, and brings it within the rule laid down in that case.
Per Curiam,
¶5
J udgment of non-suit set aside and
venire de novo.
