TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bigelow v. Libby

George T. Bigelow & others v. Stillman H. Libby

Bigelow v. Libby, 117 Mass. 359 (1875)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 31, 1875
Judges
Gray
Citations
117 Mass. 3591875 Mass. LEXIS 238
Headnotes
The statute of limitations does not begin to run on a deposit note given by a member of a mutual insurance company, whereby he agrees to pay a sum certain, or any part thereof, “ when required,” and which, by its terms, is “ part of the absolute funds of the company,” until an assessment is laid.
Summary
Contract by the receivers of the Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company to recover the amount due on the following deposit note signed by the defendant, and an assessment thereon: “ Boston, September 12, 1866. In consideration of policy No. 18,539, of even date herewith issued by the Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company, I promise to pay to said company, or the treasurer thereof, the sum of seventy-four and dollars, or any part thereof, when required, with interest from the first instant, till paid in full, this note being part of the absolute funds of said company.” Writ dated November 6, 1878. Answer, the statute of limitations. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., without a jury, it appeared that the company sustained losses by the fire of November 9, 1872, on account of which the assessment was laid on November 14 ; that no official statement of the amount of loss had been made; and that the assessment had been ratified and confirmed by a decree of the Supreme Judicial Court. The judge ruled that the statute of limitations was not a legal bar to the plaintiffs’ claim or any part thereof, and rendered judgment accordingly. The defendant alleged exceptions.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Gray

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Gray, C. J.

The note in suit is not of the nature of a common promissory note payable on demand, upon which the bringing of an action would be a sufficient demand, and the cause of action would accrue as soon as the note was made. It is a deposit note, by which the maker, in consideration of a policy of insurance issued to him, promises to pay to the insurance company or its treasurer the whole or any part of the note when required; the defendant was not bound to pay any part of the note untu the company required him and other makers of similar notes to do so i and the statute of limitations did not begin to run before the laying of an assessment. Long Pond Ins. Co. v. Houghton, 6 Gray, 77 . Appleton Ins. Co. v. Jesser, 5 Allen, 446 .

Exceptions overruled.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1884–1885: 21892–1893: 11900–1901: 118842026peak 1884 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Glenn v. Semple80 Ala. 159 (1885)
  2. Wardle v. Hudson55 N.W. 992 (Mich. 1893)
  3. Smith v. Bell107 Pa. 352 (1884)
  4. Raegener v. Medicus32 Misc. 591 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1900)

Most recent

  1. Raegener v. Medicus32 Misc. 591 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1900)
  2. Wardle v. Hudson55 N.W. 992 (Mich. 1893)
  3. Glenn v. Semple80 Ala. 159 (1885)
  4. Smith v. Bell107 Pa. 352 (1884)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list