(nem. con.) decided, in conformity with the case of Wetzel v. Bussard, 11 Wheat. 309, and Jenkins v. Boyle, in this Court at June term, 1816, (ante, 120,) and Clementson v. Williams, 8 Cranch, 72, that there was not evidence of such a promise as would take the case out of the statute of limitations.
2 Cranch 429 •
2 D.C. 429
W. S. Nicholls and J. S. Nicholls v. P. Warfield.
The defendant’s expressing a willingness to pay a debt barred by the act of limitations, if a certain account should be allowed as a set-off, is not such an acknowledgment as will take the case out of the statute.
Assumpsit, for goods sold and delivered.
The defendant pleaded the act of limitations.
The plaintiffs’ witness testified, that he called on the defendant with the plaintiffs’ account for payment. The defendant said he did not like to pay money when money was due to him, and that he had an account against J. S. Nicholls, and would settle in that way, or words to that effect. The witness did not recollect the exact words, but is positive that the defendant made no objection to the account, and expressed a willingness to pay it, if his account against J. S. Nicholls was allowed.
Nicholls v. Warfield
2 Cranch 429 •
2 D.C. 429
Case Details
2 Cranch 429
2 D.C. 429
References
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!