Bassett v. Christensen
| Decision Date | 19 September 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 34.,34. |
| Citation | 127 N.J.L. 259,21 A.2d 776 |
| Parties | BASSETT v. CHRISTENSEN. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action by Neal Bassett against Walter J. Christensen on a promissory note. From an order denying plaintiff's motion to strike the answer, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank P. Zimmer, of Newark, for defendant-appellee.
Samuel D. Williams, of Newark, for plaintiff-appellant.
Appellant is the holder of a note made by respondent, which is dated April 27, 1931, and was made payable on demand. Suit on the note was commenced on September 26, 1940. Defendant-respondent pleaded the statute of limitations, R.S. 2:24-1, 2:24-9, N.J.S.A. 2:24-1, 2:24-9. Judgment was entered for the defendant on an order denying plaintiff-appellant's motion to strike the answer, and the appeal is from that order.
None of the facts are in dispute. The issue in substance is whether a letter written by respondent to the appellant before the statutory limitation period had tolled effected a revival of the obligation. The letter was as follows:
It is settled that a promise to pay will remove the bar of the statute, and an acknowledgment of the debt which creates the implication of such a promise has that result. But if the acknowledgment is coupled with a promise that is qualified or conditional, neither the promise nor acknowledgment will suffice unless the condition has been performed or the event occurs to which the qualifying feature refers. There is also inherent the provision that the promise shall infer payment immediately or on demand when there is no such qualifying condition that has been met. Howell v. Wallace, 10 A.2d 486, 18 N.J.Misc. 48; Parker v. Butterworth, 46 N.J.L. 244, 50 Am.Rep. 407.
The letter in the instant case is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Genova v. Total Card, Inc.
...the full amount of the debt immediately or on demand") (citations omitted), aff'd 5 Fed.Appx. 46 (2d Cir.2001) ; Bassett v. Christensen , 127 N.J.L. 259, 261, 21 A.2d 776 (N.J.Ct. Errors and Appeals 1941) (debtor's written acknowledgment of full amount of debt did not revive New Jersey stat......
-
Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. v. Abagnale, L--15096
...that defendant during the period of limitations made a part-payment or even promised to pay. Compare Bassett v. Christensen, 127 N.J.L. 259, 261, 21 A.2d 776 (E. & A. 1941); Ditmars v. Camden Trust Co., 10 N.J.Super. 306, 348, 76 A.2d 280 (Ch.Div.1950), affirmed 10 N.J. 471, 498, 92 A.2d 12......
-
Cohen v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, First Fin. Inv. Fund V, LLC
...at *7 (citing DVL, Inc. v. Mutnick, 103 F. Supp. 2d 293, 295-96 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), aff'd 5 Fed. Appx. 46 (2d Cir. 2001); Bassett v. Christensen, 21 A.2d 776 (N.J. Ct. Errors and Appeals 1941); Howell v. Wallace, 10 A.2d 486 (N.J. Cir. Ct. 39)). In this case, Plaintiff was not in danger of res......
- State v. Zupkosky