Case ID: mass_146/html/0118-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Isaac Fenno vs. Clarence H. Gay.
    Suffolk.
    January 12, 1888.
    January 16, 1888.
    Present: Morton, C. J., Field, C. Allen, Holmes, & Knowxton, JJ.
    
      Demand Note— Statute of Limitations.
    
    An action brought on May 21, 1886, on a promissory note dated May 20, 1880, and payable “ on demand after date,” is barred by the statute of limitations.
    Contract against the defendant, as the maker of a promissory note dated May 20, 1880, payable “on demand, after date,” to the order of John Everitt, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff. Writ dated May 21, 1886. The answer set np, among other defences, the statute of limitations.
    In the Superior Court, Brigham, C. J., who heard the case, without a jury, ruled that the action was not commenced within six years next after the cause of action accrued, and found for the defendant upon that ground only. The plaintiff alleged exceptions.
    
      E. 0. Shepard, for the plaintiff.
    
      F. T. Benner, for the defendant.
   By the Court.

It was held in Hitchings v. Edmands, 182 Mass. 338, that a promissory note payable “on demand, after date,” is not a note payable on time, but “ is an ordinary demand note, payable at once on demand, on which an action could have been brought immediately after it was given, without any demand.” This is decisive of the case at bar. An action might have been brought oh the note in suit at any time on May 20, 1880, after it was given.

It follows that this suit, commenced May 21, 1886, was not brought within six year's after the cause of action accrued, and that the statute of limitations is a bar.

Exceptions overruled.