TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Neighbors v. Simmons

Neighbors v. Simmons, 2 Blackf. 75 (1827)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 17, 1827
Judges
Holman
Citations
2 Blackf. 751827 Ind. LEXIS 14
Headnotes
At the foot óf án account containing several items, charged in 1817, there was the following acknowledgment,—UI acknowledge the above account to be just,—Tho. NeighborsHeld, that this acknowledgment was a written contract which, under tiré act of assembly, was not barred by the statute of limitations.
Summary
ERROR to the Marion Circuit Court.

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

Opinion of the Court — Holman

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

Holman, J.

Assumpsit by Simmons against Neighbors. The declaration states that the defendant, on the 14th of April, 1817, made his certain acknowledgment in writing, whereby he acknowledged that he was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of 112 dollars and 62 cents, whereby he became liable, &c., and in consideration thereof promised to pay, &c. Plea non-assumpsit within five years. Demurrer and judgment for the plaintiff.

The contract, on which the action is founded, is ah account of sundry items in favour of Simmons against Neighbors, amounting to 112 dollars and 62 cents; the first item of which bears date the 20th of January, 1817, and the last item the 14th of April, in the same year; at the foot of which there is this writing,—“I acknowledge the above account to be just.—Thos. Neighbors.” The act of assembly provides, that no statute of limitations shall be pleaded as a bar, or operate as such, to any action founded on an instrument or contract in writing, whether the same be sealed or unsealed (1) . We are of opinion that the written acknowledgment of this account forms a contract in writing; and that the plea of the statute of limitations, in this case, was inadmissible.

With the refusal of the Circuit Court to continue the cause we have nothing to do: the affidavit to continue the cause is no part of the record.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed with lper cení, damages and costs.

R. C. 1824, p. 291. Acc. R. C. 1831, p. 401.

How later courts describe this case

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

1859–1860: 11863–1864: 11899–1900: 118592026peak 1859 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Prenatt v. Runyon12 Ind. 174 (1859)
  2. Ashley v. Vischer24 Cal. 322 (1864)
  3. William Deering & Co. v. Miller19 Ohio C.C. Dec. 259 (Oh. Circ. Ct., Erie 1899)

Most recent

  1. William Deering & Co. v. Miller19 Ohio C.C. Dec. 259 (Oh. Circ. Ct., Erie 1899)
  2. Ashley v. Vischer24 Cal. 322 (1864)
  3. Prenatt v. Runyon12 Ind. 174 (1859)

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