TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Clementson v. Williams

Clementson v. Williams, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 72 (1814)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
February 19, 1814
Judges
Marshall
Citations
12 U.S. 723 L. Ed. 4918 Cranch 721814 U.S. LEXIS 387
Cited by 59 Original from court
Headnotes
Statute of limitations. An acknowledgment of the original justice of a claim, is not sufficient to take the case out of ■ the statute of limitations; the acknowledgment must go to the fact, that it is still due.1 The statute of limitations is entitled to the same respect as other statutes, and ought not to be explained away.2 Quaere ? Whether an acknowledgment by one partner, after dissolution of the partnership, is sufficient to take a ease out of the statute of limitations ?3
Summary
Error to the Circuit Court for the district of Columbia, sitting at Alexandria. The facts of the case are thus stated by the Chief Justice, in deliv- ¡ ering the opinion of the court: The plaintiff instituted a’suit against James Williams and John Clarke, merchants and partners trading under the firm of John Clarke & Co. The writ was executed on Williams only, who pleaded non assumpsit and the act of limitations, on which pleas, issues were joined. The jury found that the defendant did not assume ; and judgment was rendered in his favor. At the trial, the plaintiff: gave evidence tending to prove the partnership, and also to prove dealings of Clarke & Co. with the plaintiff. He then offered a witness who proved, that he presented, in December preceding the trial, to John Clarke, a certain account against the said John Clarke & Co., in favor of the plaintiff; and that said Clarke stated, that the said account was due, and that he supposed it had been paid by the defenndant, but had not paid it himself, and did not know of its being ever paid. And the witness to whom the said Clarke made the said acknowledgment produced in court the identical account so presented to said Clarke, and acknowledged by him as aforesaid, which account was in the words and figures following, to wit, “ an account,” ¿sc. And the plaintiff’s counsel offered the contents of said account and the acknowledgment of said Clarke in evidence, under the issue joined upon the plea of the statute of limitations, but the court decided, that the said evidence so offered by the plaintiff of the contents of the said account and of the acknowledgment of the same by the said Clarke, was not admissible evidence in this cause, and refused to admit the same.” To this opinion, the plaintiff excepted, and from the judgment of the circuit court, he appealed to this court.

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

Opinion — Marshall

Marshall, Ch. J., 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.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 59 cases

View all citing references →
1816–1817: 11818–1819: 21822–1823: 31824–1825: 31826–1827: 21828–1829: 31830–1831: 51832–1833: 21834–1835: 31836–1837: 21838–1839: 11844–1845: 21848–1849: 21854–1855: 11856–1857: 11858–1859: 11864–1865: 11868–1869: 11870–1871: 11872–1873: 11874–1875: 11884–1885: 11886–1887: 11888–1889: 21890–1891: 11894–1895: 11896–1897: 21898–1899: 11900–1901: 11908–1909: 21914–1915: 11918–1919: 11924–1925: 11940–1941: 21946–1947: 11962–1963: 12018–2019: 118162026peak 1830 · 5

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Rahilly v. O'Laughlin1 F.2d 1 (8th Cir. 1924)
  2. Shepherd v. Thompson122 U.S. 231 (1887)
  3. In re Goldsworthy's Estate115 P.2d 627 (N.M. 1941)
  4. Pan American Petroleum Corporation v. B. B. Orr and W. R. Henderson319 F.2d 612 (5th Cir. 1963)
  5. Roosevelt v. Mark6 Johns. Ch. 266 (1822)
  6. Caseldine v. Johnson115 P.2d 627 (N.M. 1941)

Most recent

  1. Charles Chang, M.D. v. Ashley DennyNo. 05-17-01457-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 22, 2019)
  2. Pan American Petroleum Corporation v. B. B. Orr and W. R. Henderson319 F.2d 612 (5th Cir. 1963)
  3. Van Diest v. Towle179 P.2d 984 (Colo. 1947)
  4. In re Goldsworthy's Estate115 P.2d 627 (N.M. 1941)
  5. Caseldine v. Johnson115 P.2d 627 (N.M. 1941)
  6. Rahilly v. O'Laughlin1 F.2d 1 (8th Cir. 1924)

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