Case ID: f-cas_2/html/0007-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The COURT", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Case No. 572.
    ASH v. HAYMAN.
    [2 Cranch, C. C. 452.] 
    
    Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
    April Term, 1824.
    Limitation of Actions—Acknowledgment—' Offer to Compromise. .•
    Terms offered by way of compromise 'cannot he given in evidence to rebut the statute of limitations.
    [See Rhodes v. Hadfield, Case No. 11,748;
    Hamilton v. Carnes, Id. 5,977; Nicholls v.
    Warfield, Id. 10,234; Bank of Columbia v.
    Sweeney, Id. 882.] • . .
    At law.
    Assumpsit, upon the defendant’s promissory note due in 1806. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations. To take the case out of the statute, the plaintiff offered in evidence a letter from the defendant to the witness in which he says, “I am desirous that Mr. Ash’s claim should be settled;” and offers to pay §150, which was half of the amount of the note without interest. " This evidence was objected to by Mr. Marbury, for the defendant, on the ground that it was a mere offer to compromise; and he relied upon the case of Neil v. Abbott, in this court, at December term, 1819, [Case No. 10,088.]
   The COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, contra)

rejected the evidence.