Boustead v. Cuyler
Boustead v. Cuyler
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff declared on a “ promissory note or due bill.” It is payable on demand. It is therefore evidence of a present debt. It is due and demandable immediately. The commencement of a suit is a sufficient demand. No demand is necessary as a condition precedent to a right of action: Andress’ Appeal, 99 Penn. St. 421; Milne’s Appeal, Idem 483; Smith v. Bell, 107 Idem 352. It follows that this due bill on its face was barred by the statute of limitations before suit brought. The main body of the note was in the handwriting of the maker. It was however altered in a material part, admittedly not in his handwriting, .by adding “ with interest at 6 per cent, until paid.” No evidence explaining this alteration was given. The plaintiff executor did not become a .competent witness, as his wife was so interested as to be clearly incompetent.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- BOUSTEAD, EXEC'R v. CUYLER, ADM'R'X
- Cited By
- 13 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Suit was brought May 14, 1878, by A., executor of B., against the administratrix of the maker of the following instrument: “November 13, 1868. I have in my'hands to the credit of A., executor of B. and also of C., a certain sum payable to him as such executor, on demand with interest at six per cent, until paid.” Held, that no precedent demand was necessary to a right of action, and that the statute of limitations was a bar. 2. The plaintiff offered as a witness, having shown on his voir dire that he was a son of the decedent and had assigned his interest to his wife, now deceased, was nevertheless incompetent to testify, nor could he be made competent by a release of his individual interest executed on trial. 3. The instrument, though in the admitted handwriting of the defendant’s decedent, yet had been altered by the addition of “ with interest at six per cent, until paid,” which was unexplained : Held, the instrument was properly excluded from admission as evidence.