Case Name: Rodrigue v. Fronty
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1806-01
Citations: 2 Brev. 31
Docket Number: 
Parties: Rodrigue v. Fronty.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 31–32

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, CHARLESTON,
JAN. 1806.
Rodrigue v. Fronty.
A bare acknowledgment of a debt remaining unsatisfied, without any eta-, dence of a promise to pay it, will save the claim from the limitation act. \Vide 3 Bailey, 278, Young v. Mompoeyi]’
Motion for a new trial. The action was assumpsit against dc-< fendant, as acceptor of an inland bill of exchange, drawn at the Cape, by Bawry, in favor of M. M. Victoria, Freres and Fils, on defendant, who accepted the same. The bill was indorsed by Victoria, Freres and Fils, to Stephen Lacoste, and by Lacoste to Abra, ham Rodrigue, the plaintiff, to demand and receive the amount for Victoria, Freres and Fils, without recourse. The defendant pleaded the act of limitations. Replication, acknowledgment, within four' years; and issue thereon. Stephen Lacoste was examined as a witness, and proved, that two years before the bringing the action,, the bill was sent to him by Victoria, Freres and Fils, as their agent,to demand and receive the amount thereof from defendant, then in Charleston ; that he accordingly presented the same to the defendant, who declined paying it; alleging that he had accepted it to serve a friend, without receiving himself any valuable consideration ; that the funds in the West Indies, out of which he expected to pay it, had been lost by the calamities that existed there. Mr. Lacoste further mentioned, that finding it was not to be received unless re. covered by suit, he declined having any thing farther to do in the business, and afterwards, by direction of Victoria, Freres and Fils, delivered the bill to Rodrigue.
Trezevant, J., before whom the cause was tried, was of opinion, and so charged the jury, that these declarations of Fronty did not amount to a sufficient acknowledgment of a subsisting, debt, and of a promise or intention to pay the same, to take the case out of the operation of the limitation act; and the defendant had a verdict.
The motion in this court was argued by the Attorney General, Pringue, for the plaintiff, who cited 4 East’s Rep. 509. Brian v. Horseman; and Rutter v. Hanning, lb. 604. 3 Esp. Rep. 155, 107. Clark v. Cogan and Bradshaw. Peak’s Cases, 93.
Bailey argued against the motion.

Opinion:
The court,
Grimke, Bay, Trezevant, Brevard, and Wilds,-jU6jjceS-
Were all clearly of opinion that the plaintiff was intitled to' a new trial. That the law is now settled that a 6are acknowledg. ment of an existing debt, without any evidence of a promise to pay,will lake it out of the statute of limitations. See 1 Esp. Rep. 435. See Wallace's Rep. 66. Cowan v. Magauran. See the case of Aiken v. Benton, 3d vol. 289.
New trial granted.-