Heany v. Schwartz

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania February 13, 1893

Heany v. Schwartz, 155 Pa. 154 (Pa. 1893)

25 A. 1078; 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1209

Dean, Green, Mitchell, Paxson, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

We need not discuss the form of the reservation for the reason that no specific exception appears to have been made to it on the trial below. Upon the merits we are of opinion that the evidence was not sufficient to toll the statute of limitations, and the judgment was properly entered for the defendants non obstante veredicto. We need not discuss the evidence or refer to the numerous authorities upon this subject. The case itself involves nothing new and we have gone over the subject so *156fully in former decisions that nothing remains to be added. If ^the profession does not understand by this time what is a sufficient acknowledgment to toll the statute we cannot hope by multiplying words to make it any plainer.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Cited By: 4 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Statute of limitations—Acknowledgment of debt. A statement by defendant that he is willing to pay his share of a joint debt and it should be paid, followed by an assertion that he would not pay unless compelled by law to do so, is not sufficient to toll the statute; nor is a statement that he was willing to pay his share if the other debtors did the same. Practice—■Exception to reserved point. Where no specific exception to the form of a reserved point is taken in the court below, the Supreme Court will not consider it.