Case Name: William Edgell, Administrator of John H. Pratt deceased, defendant below, appellant, v. Thomas Coates, plaintiff below, respondent
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Delaware
Decision Date: 1866
Citations: 3 Houst. 325
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Edgell, Administrator of John H. Pratt deceased, defendant below, appellant, v. Thomas Coates, plaintiff below, respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Delaware Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 325–326

Head Matter:
William Edgell, Administrator of John H. Pratt deceased, defendant below, appellant, v. Thomas Coates, plaintiff below, respondent.
The action upon a due bill payable on demand and without date and no other proof of demand of payment of it than the institution of the suit upon it, must be commenced in six years after the making and delivery of it, if the statute of limitation is pleaded.
Pronarr in assumpsit on appeal from a justice of the peace upon a due-hill without date and payable on demand for $72.00 from John H. Pratt, the deceased, to Coates, the plaintiff below. There was no proof that any demand of payment of it had been made prior to the death of Pratt, or when it was made and delivered to Coates.
Cullen, for the defendant below.
As the statute of limitations among other defences had been pleaded, and no action would lie upon it without a demand, and there was no proof that any had been made upon Pratt, or when it was made and delivered by him, the plaintiff below must prove that the suit was commenced within three years after it was made and delivered to him, or he would he barred.
Layton, for the plaintiff below.
There were some facts stated by the witnesses which would warrant the jury in presuming that it was made in February or March, 1865, as there was no proof before them that the parties had ever had any dealings prior to that time. #

Opinion:
The Court, Gilpin, C. J., charged the jury,
that the plaintiff Coates, must prove to their satisfaction that the due bill was made and delivered by the deceased to him, and, as the statute of limitations had been pleaded, that the suit below had been commenced within six years thereafter, or he could not recover, since no other demand for the payment of it, had been proved, than the institution of the suit, which was equivalent to it.