Beck v. Beck

• Citation: 25 Pa. 124
• Parties: Daniel Beck versus David Beck.
• Decision Date: 01 May 1855
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 124

25 Pa. 124

Daniel Beck versus David Beck.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Lawrence county.

McGuffin, for plaintiff in error.—The promise was to pay when plaintiff needed it. The promise to take a case out of the statute must be clear and unconditional: Harbold's Executors v. Kuntz, 4 Harris 200; Nixon v. Bromfield, 2 Harris 310; Oakes v. Mitchell, 15 Maine Rep. 360; Jones v. Smart, 6 B. & C. 459; Murray v. Wheeler, N. H. 486; 8 Shep. 433; Miss. 256; 4 Dev. & Bat. 129; 1 Pet. 351; 7 Hill 45; 3 Barr 418; 1 Richardson 210; 5 Shep. 144; 2 Pick. 368; 11 Wheat. 310; 1 H. & Gill 204; 7 Halstead 339; 3 Wend. 187; 7 Verm. 54; 2 Jones 264; 6 W. & Ser. 213; Suter v Sheeler, 10 Harris 308.

Johnson, Dana, and B. B. Prickett, for defendants, cited Kensington Bank v. Patton, 2 Harris 479; 4 Barr 323; Harbold's Executors v. Kintz, 4 Harris 210.

When called on first, defendant asked for time, and said he had no money, and promised payment with interest; and, in his conversation with Andrew, promised payment when, or if, plaintiff needed it; and every different statement was mere subterfuge, to get away from the immediate discharge of the debt. Payment can only be predicated of a subsisting debt: American Law Register, October, 1855. The creditor depositing (or loaning) money determines his own necessities, and the right to withdraw when needed, is implied; and a promise to pay when needed, is equivalent to a promise to pay on demand. The demand was evidence of the necessity.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by LEWIS, C. J.

The demand on which this suit is brought was barred by the statute of limitations, unless taken out of the statute by a new promise within six years. The Court instructed the jury that "the promise of 1848, as testified to by Andrew Beck, if the jury believe the testimony, is sufficient to take the case out of the bar of the statute." Andrew Beck had purchased a place from the defendant, and was indebted for the purchase-money. By directions from the plaintiff, Andrew applied to the defendant to allow the plaintiff's claim to be deducted out of the purchase-money. This the defendant positively refused, saying that the money received from the plaintiff was a present — that what he owed to the plaintiff he would pay to the plaintiff himself when he needed it, or when his necessities required. This was not an admission that he owed the plaintiff anything, nor a promise which assumed the form or the...