Case ID: scl_18/html/0092-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Johnson J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Grist v. Reuben Newman.
    An express promise by defendant, to pay when he had collected money which was due to him, is sufficient to revive a debt already barred by the statute of limitations; and an action on the promise lies presently.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, at Spartanburgh, Fall Term, 1830.
    This was an appeal from the decision of a magistrate. The cause of action arose in 1823, and the statute of limitations was relied on as a defence. It appeared, that in 1830 the defendant was requested to give his note for the amount of the debt, and refused to do so ; but said there was a great deal of money due him, and when he. collected it, he would pay the plaintiff. The magistrate overruled the defence; and on appeal, his Honor, the presiding Judge, reversed the judgment of the magistrate, on the authority of a recent decision of the Court of Appeals. The plaintiff now appealed from the decision of his Honor.
    Bobo, for the motion.
    A. W. Thompson, contra.
    
   Johnson J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The case alluded to by the presiding Judge, was decided at the last sittings in Charleston, but 1 have not preserved the title of it. The rule laid down, was, that if the statute had fully run out, and the debt was actually barred, a promise to pay was necessary to revive it. It strikes me, however, that this case is clearly brought, within it: For I cannot conceive a more explicit promise to pay, than was here made. As to its being a conditional promise, I doubt whether, under any circumstances, a debtor in promising to pay a debt barred by the statute, can prescribe any conditions to the payment, other than such as entered into the original contract: Here, however, the expression that he would pay when he collected money due him, and out of which a condition is supposed to arise, to pay when he shall collect the money, appears evidently to be a reason for not paying the money then, and not a condition. The judgment of the Circuit Court reversing the judgment of the magistrate is, therefore reversed; and the appeal from that judgment is dismissed. 
      
       Vide Young v. Monpoey, and Cohen & Nesbit v. Aubin. post