Case ID: del_4/html/0246-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NATHANIEL WOLFE vs. BENJAMIN WHITEMAN.
    On a note payable on or after sight, the act of limitation does not begin to run until si demand is made.
    A presentment with a request of payment, or a new note, is a good demand.
    This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, dated' August 29th, 1837, payable thirty days after sight. The defence was the act of limitation, and set off of a book account, beginning in 1825, and ending in 1830 ; to which the plaintiff replied the act of limitation. The plaintiff proved the execution of the note and a presentment, about August 20th, 1843, for payment or a new note,, with a view to prevent the running of the act.
    
      Gray, for plaintiff.
    
      Wales, for defendant,
    
      Mr. Wales, for defendant,
    contended that this was not a lawful presentment, the demand being in the alternative? that such presentment avowedly for the purpose of saving the bar of the statute, implied a previous presentment at or about the date of the note, as the danger of such bar could only exist on such supposition ; and if the jury believed there had been such previous demand, at so early a date, the note was now barred.
    
      Mr. Gray, for plaintiff,
    replied that this note_bein^^payable thirty days after sight, the cause of action' did not ©ee-úr, and the statute could not begin to run until a demand ; that there was.no evidence of a presentment previous to August, 1843 ; and that the demand for payment, or a new note, was a lawful presentment: of which opinion was the court; and the matters of discount being clearly barred by the statute, the plaintiff had a verdict for the amount of the note with interest from the time of presentment. (Chitty on Cont. 311; 2 Taunt. 323.)