George W. Helm Co. v. Griffin
| Decision Date | 07 March 1893 |
| Citation | 16 S.E. 1023,112 N.C. 356 |
| Parties | GEORGE W. HELM CO. v. GRIFFIN. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Wayne county; BRYAN, Judge.
Action by the George W. Helm Company against C. F. Griffin on account for goods sold and delivered. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
A letter written by a debtor to his creditors, concerning a debt which is barred by limitations, and reciting that the debtor felt delicate about asking further credit, knowing that he had been unable to pay what he owed them, but felt confident of paying bills contracted in the future, is not sufficient to remove the bar of the statute, since the letter contains no promise whatever.
Defendant in the above action pleaded the statute of limitations, and the plaintiff firm alleged a new promise by defendant, and introduced the following letter written by him to plaintiff
W. C. Munroe, for appellant.
Under the former statute of presumptions, an acknowledgment of the nonpayment of a debt coming within its operation would rebut the presumption of payment arising from the lapse of time. Such was the purport of the decisions cited by counsel for the plaintiff. But now we have no statute of presumptions. The Code, § 138, [1] prescribes a statute of limitations only. The acknowledgment which is now requisite as evidence of a new or continuing contract must not only be in writing (Code, § 172, [2]) but it must be an unconditional promise to pay the debt, (Bates v. Herren, 95 N.C. 388; Greenleaf v. Railroad Co., 91 N.C. 33.) A mere acknowledgment of the debt, though implying a promise to pay it, will not revive it. Riggs v. Roberts, 85 N.C. 151; Faison v. Bowden, 76 N.C. 425. This section (172) provides that the statute is only waived by an acknowledgment or new...
To continue reading
Request your trial