Safford v. Barney
Eben H. Safford v. Horace Barney, administrator
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
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.
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.