Case Name: Bank of Columbia v. John Ott's Administrator
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1825-05
Citations: 2 Cranch 575
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bank of Columbia v. John Ott’s Administrator.
Judges: (Thruston, J., contra,)
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 2
Pages: 575–576

Head Matter:
Bank of Columbia v. John Ott’s Administrator.
In an action against the indorser of a promissory note, payable sixty days after date, non assumpsit infra tres amos, is a bad plea upon general demurrer; it ought to be actio non accrevit.
See this case at last term, (ante, 529.)
Assumpsit against the administrator of the indorser of a promissory note, payable in 60 days after date. The defendant had pleaded “ non assumpsit infra tres annos,” to which the plaintiff demurred generally.
Mr. J, Dunlop,
contends that the plea is bad upon general demurrer, because tbe note, being payable in sixty days after date, the plea ought to have averred that the cause of action did not accrue within three years, whereas it only avers that the defendant did not promise within three years. 2 Saund. 63 c, which cites Gould v. Johnson, 2 Salk. 422 ; 2 Ld. Raym. 838, S. C. ; Puchle v. Moore, 1 Vent. 191; Búies v. Trippet, 1 Saund. 33, note 2; Bull. N. P. 151.
Mr. Marbury, contra.
This is an action against the indorser, whose liability did not accrue until after the note became payable ; and the declaration avers, that in consideration of that liability the defendant promised to pay. It was not debitum in pre-sentí, solvendum in futuro.
Mr. Key, in reply.
The plea does not relate to the implied promise which the law raises, and which is averred in the declaration as arising from the facts previously averred. The indorser makes a conditional promise at the time he indorses. The promise relates back to the time of the indorsement. The promise of the maker is stated in the same way, namely, “ by reason whereof, and by force of the statute,” &e., “ the defendant became liable, and being so liable, in consideration thereof promised to pay,” &c. The liability of the indorser upon his original undertaking and the plaintiff’s right of action, did not accrue until sixty days after the promise; so that the promise may have been beyond the time of limitation, and the right of action within it.

Opinion:
The Court,
after consideration,
(Thruston, J., contra,)
was of opinion that the plea of " non assumpsit infra tres anuos,'" pleaded by an indorser of a promissory note payable sixty days after date, was bad, upon general demurrer. It ought to have been actio non accrevit.