New York Supreme Court, 1812

Troup v. Mullender

New York Supreme Court · Decided October 15, 1812 · Uricirn

9 Johns. 303

Counsel

Henry, for the plaintiff, contended, 1. That the evidence, on the part of the plaintiff, was sufficient to take the case out of the statute. Any slight acknowledgment of a debt had been considered sufficient for that purpose. An endorsement of part payment on the note takes it out of the statute ; and it has been decided, that a receipt for interest endorsed on a bond, within twenty would prevent the operation of the statute.*, H. Bleecker, contra, said, that the statute of limitations was a very useful act, and ought to be favoured ; and judges in England, of late years, had regretted that they had been so easy to take cases out of the operation of the statute.† There is a great difference between length of time which operates as a bar to a claim-, and that which is used only b~j na~j of evidence. A jury is co~ eluded by length of time which operates as a bar, as where the statute of Iimitation~ is pleaded in bar to a debt.*

Opinion of the Court

Per C~uricirn.

It will be ~mnecessary to take notice of the first point made in this cause, respecting the evidence of the endorsement, because the court are of opinion that this was a case of a pa~ rol demise, and reservation of rent, since the alienation of the promises to Sir William Pvlleney, and, consequently, the considera. tion of the note wa~ not valid under the act of (he 2ôth session, c. 72. This objection is fatal to the plaintiff's right of action. It is to be understood, from the case, that the lands were demised from year to year, under a reservation of rent, by the agent of the in~ testate, and that this was done as well since, as prior, to the sale to Sir William Pultei~ey, and the payments upon the note were more than sufficient to cancel all the lawful charges included in the note.

Judgaient for the defendant.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.