Case ID: nh_1/html/0019-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOHN BENNETT versus GIDEON DAVIS.
    Items charged in a book account, within six years, do not take articles charged in the same account more than six years before suit, out of the statute of limitations, unless there are mutual accounts between the parties.
    THIS was an action of assumpsit, founded upon an account annexed to the writ, amounting to ninety-one dollars thirty-four cents. All the items in the account, except the three last, were charged previous to the 28th October, 1803. The three last items were charged in the years 1811, 1812, and 1813. The actiorfwas commenced on the 16th December, 1815. Upon the trial here, in September-term, 1810, the only question that arose in the case was, whether the three last items, having been charged within six years, were sufficient to take the residue of the account out of the statute of limitations.
   Per curiam.

The law, which must govern this case, is extremely clear. The rule is, where there are mutual accounts between the parties for any item of which credit has been given within six years, this is evidence of an acknowl-edgement of there being an open account between the parties and a promise to pay the balance ; but where all the items are on one Side, the last item which happens to be within six years shall not draw after it those that are of a longer standing. Buller's N. P. 149, Cotes vs. Harris. Peake's Cases, N. P. 121, Cranch vs. Kirkman. 2 Mass. R. 217, Cogswell vs. Dolliver. 2 Williams Saunders 127, notes 6 & 7. 6 Durn & E. 189, Catling vs. Skoulding.

J. P. Hale, for the plaintiff.

N. Eastman and J, Smith, for the defendant.

The present case comes within the la^t clause of the rule aboue laid- down, and the three last items are not evidence of a promise to pay the preceding items.