TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Safford v. Barney

Eben H. Safford v. Horace Barney, administrator

Safford v. Barney, 121 Mass. 300 (1876)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 14, 1876
Judges
Gray
Citations
121 Mass. 3001876 Mass. LEXIS 362
Headnotes
Tinder the Gen. Sts. c. 155, § 5, which provide that “ in actions of contract, brought to recover the balance due upon a mutual and open account current, the cause of action shall be deemed to have accrued at the time of the last item proved in the account,” it is sufficient to prove mutual dealings between the parties, consisting of sales made, or services performed, by each party, to or for the other, creating mutual debts, and which by mutual agreement are to be set off against one another, and are entered in an account stated by the plaintiff, even if no balance has been struck; and the statute of limitations begins to run only from the date of the last item on either side of the account.
Summary
Contract, against the administrator of Ira G. Bean, on the following account annexed: “ Ira G. Bean to E. H. Safford, Dr. For the Essex Banner (weekly newspaper) from January 1, 1848, to January 1, 1874, 26 years, at $2 $52.00 “ Interest, 30.00 $82.00 “ Spring of 1873, credit by making stands, 8.00 “ Balance claimed at date of writ, $74.00 ” Writ dated Feb. 3, 1876. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after judgment for the plaintiff for the balance claimed, to this court, on appeal, on an agreed statement of facts in substance as follows: The newspaper was delivered weekly to the intestate at his request, who made and delivered to the plaintiff the stands as credited in the account annexed, in part payment for the sum then due for the paper. The plaintiff, from time to time, and usually in January of every year, requested payment' from the defendant of the amount then due. Bean died in the fall of 1874, and the defendant was soon after appointed administrator of his estate. If the statute of limitations applied to the plaintiff’s account, judgment was to be entered for the plaintiff,for $4.50, and interest from the date of the writ; otherwise, for the plaintiff for $74.00 with interest from the date of the writ.

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.

Under the Gen. Sts. <?. 155, § 5, which provide that, “ in actions of contract, brought to recover the balance due upon a mutual and open account current, the cause of action shall be deemed to have accrued at the time of the last item proved in the account,” it is sufficient to prove mutual deal ings between the parties, consisting of sales made, or services performed, by each party, to or for the other, creating mutual debts, and which by mutual agreement are to be set off against one another, and are entered in an account stated by the plaintiff, even if no balance has been struck; and the statute of limitations, begins to run only from the date of the last item on either side of the account. The case is governed by Penniman v. Rotch, 3 Met. 216 . Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1887: 11891: 11897: 11914: 11916: 11935: 11937: 11942: 118872026peak 1887 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Markiewicz v. Toton198 N.E. 659 (Mass. 1935)
  2. Day v. Mayo28 N.E. 898 (Mass. 1891)
  3. Kennedy v. Drake114 N.E. 310 (Mass. 1916)
  4. Eldridge v. Smith10 N.E. 717 (Mass. 1887)
  5. Kingsley v. Delano47 N.E. 1013 (Mass. 1897)
  6. Harding v. Covell104 N.E. 452 (Mass. 1914)

Most recent

  1. Abele v. Dietz7 Mass. App. Div. 125 (1942)
  2. Collamore v. Cliftondale Woodworking Co.2 Mass. App. Div. 288 (1937)
  3. Markiewicz v. Toton198 N.E. 659 (Mass. 1935)
  4. Kennedy v. Drake114 N.E. 310 (Mass. 1916)
  5. Harding v. Covell104 N.E. 452 (Mass. 1914)
  6. Kingsley v. Delano47 N.E. 1013 (Mass. 1897)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Flippin v. Hays, 60 Ky. 215 (1860) 23

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