Clementson v. Williams
Cases that cite this one
61 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Rahilly v. O'Laughlin (8th Cir. 1924)
- Pan American Petroleum Corporation v. B. B. Orr and W. R. Henderson (5th Cir. 1963)
- In re Goldsworthy's Estate (N.M. 1941)
- Caseldine v. Johnson (N.M. 1941)
- Charles Chang, M.D. v. Ashley Denny (Tex. App. 2019)
- Van Diest v. Towle (Colo. 1947)
- Maciel v. Kalua (Haw. 1918)
- Arthur & Co. v. Burke (Wash. 1915)
- Harris v. Clark (Haw. 1908)
- Hornblower v. George Washington University (D.C. Cir. 1908)
- Whereatt v. Worth (Wis. 1900)
- Stubblefield v. McAuliff (Wash. 1898)
- A. Kuhn & Bro. v. Mount (Utah 1896)
- Merrill v. Town of Monticello (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana 1895)
- COOPER v. WOOD (Colo. App. 1891)
- Rowe v. Marchant (Va. 1889)
- Centeal Pacific Raileoad Co. v. United States (Court of Claims 1889)
- Campbell v. Holt (Supreme Court of the United States 1885)
- Knoedler v. Meloy (D.C. 1875)
- United States v. Wilder (Supreme Court of the United States 1872)
- Wilder v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1871)
- Cross v. United States (Court of Claims 1868)
- Henry v. . Root (N.Y. 1865)
- Dawson v. Godkins (Ga. 1859)
- Stockett v. Sasscer (Md. 1855)
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
after stating the facts of the case, delivered the opinion of the court, as follows : — *It is contended by the plaintiff in error, that, after the dissolution of the partnership, *49 the acknowledgment of one partner is evidence to revive the original cause of action against both, and that the acknowledgment made in this case by Clarke is sufficient for that purpose.
It has been frequently decided, that an acknowledgment of a debt barred by the statute of limitations, takes the case out of that statute, and revives the original cause of action. So far as decisions have gone on this point, principles may be considered as settled, and the court will not lightly unsettle them. But they have gone full as far as they ought to be carried, and this court is not inclined to extend them. The statute of limitations is entitled to the same respect with other statutes, and ought not to be explained away.
In this case, there is no promise, conditional or unconditional; but a simple acknowledgment. This acknowledgment goes to the original justice of the account; but this is not enough. The statute of limitations was not enacted to protect persons from claims, fictitious in their origin, but from ancient claims, whether well or ill founded, which may have been discharged, but the evidence of discharge may be lost. It is not, then, sufficient to take the case out of the act, that the claim should be proved or be acknowledged to have been originally just; the acknowledgment must go to the fact that it is still due. In the case at bar, the acknowledgment of John Clarke is, that he had not discharged the account presented to him, but he does not say, that it was not discharged. His partner may have paid it, without the knowledge of Clarke, and consequently, the declaration of Clarke that he had not himself paid it, and that he did not know whether his partner had paid it or not, is no proof that the debt remains due, and therefore, is not such an acknowledgment as will take the case out of the statute of limitations. There is no error, and the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.