Fenno v. Gay
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Continental Oil Co. v. Horsey (Md. 1939)
- Kenyon v. Youngman (District Court, District of Columbia 1930)
- Updegraff v. City of Ottumwa (Iowa 1929)
- Hodges' Administrator v. Asher (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) 1928)
- Johnson v. Learie (Vt. 1927)
- Citizens Bank of Pleasantville v. Taylor (Iowa 1926)
- House v. Peacock (Conn. 1911)
- Darby v. Darby (La. 1908)
- Hardon v. Dixon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1902)
- Leshara State Bank v. Hoagland (Neb. 1935)
- National Shawmut Bank v. Fitzpatrick (Mass. 1926)
- Rigley v. Watts (Ohio Circuit Courts 1898)
- Peninsular Savings Bank v. Hosie (Mich. 1897)
- Nye v. Lothrop (Mich. 1892)
- Seward v. Hayden (Mass. 1889)
- O'Neil v. Magner (Cal. 1889)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
It was held in Hitchings v. Edmands, 182 Mass. 338, that a promissory note payable “on demand, after date,” is not a note payable on time, but “ is an ordinary demand note, payable at once on demand, on which an action could have been brought immediately after it was given, without any demand.” This is decisive of the case at bar. An action might have been brought oh the note in suit at any time on May 20, 1880, after it was given.
It follows that this suit, commenced May 21, 1886, was not brought within six year's after the cause of action accrued, and that the statute of limitations is a bar.
Exceptions overruled.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.