Case Name: John Grist v. Reuben Newman
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1831-01
Citations: 2 Bail. 92
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Grist v. Reuben Newman.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 92–92

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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