Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

63 Neb. 245

Mizer v. Emigh

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided December 18, 1901

Nebraska Supreme Court · decided 1901-12-18

<p>1. Account: Statute oe Limitations. An action on an account is barred in four years.</p> <p>2. -: -: Judgment: Tolling; A payment made on an account by a person other than the debtor, without his authority, knowledge and consent, will not toll the running of the statute of limitations.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1901-12-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 1958

4 state decisions

10190119101920193019401950decided

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 →

Norval, C. J.

¶1This was an action on an account. The statute of limitations was interposed as a defense, which was sustained by the court below, and judgment rendered for the defendant. It is conceded by plaintiff that the action is barred, unless the statute was tolled by the payment of $7, made, *246and credit therefor given, on October 28, 1895. The undisputed evidence discloses that the payment was made by one Cutter, who was indebted in that sum to the defendant, and the payment was so made without Emigh’s knowledge or consent. After the date of the payment defendant was advised by Cutter of the transaction, .and the evidence adduced by Emigh tends to show that he did not ratify the payment made by Cutter. An action on an account is barred in four years. Reeves v. Nye, 28 Nebr., 571. A payment made on an account by a person other than a debtor, without the knowledge and consent of the latter, will not toll the running of the statute of limitations. This action being barred, the judgment must be

¶2Affirmed.

/63/neb/245 · .json · Public domain