Case ID: ri_1/html/0488-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dexter D. Shaw et ux. vs. Nathaniel Newell.
    An action cannot be sustained upon a qualified promise to pay a debt barred by the statute of limitation, unless it be brought in accordance with the qualification.
    Assumpsit upon a promissory note of the defendant, dated June 23, 1839, and made payable to the plaintiff’s wife. Hea, statute of limitations. Replication, a new promise. It appeared in evidence that Newell, in a conversation with the plaintiff’s wife, upon being requested to renew his note, replied, “you'need not be concerned, I calculate to pay you all I owe you within a year.” This was in May, 1850 ; the writ was served in June of the same year. The officer charged with the service of the writ testified that the defendant said, “ the last time I saw the plaintiff’s wife, I told her I should pay her within a year.”
    The counsel for the defendant asked the Court to dismiss the cause, on the ground that, even if the evidence proved a promise to pay this debt, no action could be brought upon it within a year.
   Per Curiam.

If this be anything, it is a promise to pay at the end of the year. The action cannot be brought within that time. When a person makes a qualified acknowledgment of a debt barred by the statute, the plaintiff must take the acknowledgment with its qualifications.

Action discontinued.