Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

57 Mass. 355

Smith v. Eastman

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1849-03-15

This was an action by the plaintiff, as the indorsee, against the defendant, as the maker, of a promissory note for §300, dated August 5th, 1837, and payable in sixty days. The writ was dated March 19th, 1847. The defence was the statute of limitations. The plaintiff relied on a new promise.

Decided 1849-03-15

By the court.

¶1Prima facie, and upon a mere comparison of dates, this action is barred by the statute of limitations. This could only be avoided by proving a promise in writing. Rev. Sts. c. 120, § 13. To prove such promise, the plaintiff offered evidence of two notes, indorsed by third persons, upon an agreement of the plaintiff, to take a part for the whole. ■

¶2This was not an admission of a debt, but a compromise and promise to pay part for the whole. The notes, which the defendant made and presented to Bayley, were not a promise to pay this debt, but they were indorsed notes, offered as a compliance with the proposed compromise, not accepted by the plaintiff, but afterwards returned by the agent. There is no color for saying, that this was a promise in writing to pay the original debt sued for in this action.

¶3Exceptions overruled, with double costs.

/57/mass/355 · .json · Public domain