Huff v. Richardson

• Decision Date: 01 January 1858
• Citation: 19 Pa. 388
• Parties: Huff versus Richardson.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

19 Pa. 388

Huff versus Richardson.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Westmoreland county.

Foster, for plaintiff in error.—He contended that the acknowledgment was not sufficient to take the claim out of the statute

of limitations. He referred to 2 Harris 319, Nixon v. Brownfield; 9 Barr 410, Laforge v. Jayne. The acknowledgment ought to be distinct: 6 W. & Ser. 213, Gilkyson v. Larue; 4 Barr 321, Morgan v. Walton.

Drum, contrà.—The account from the books showed the amount. The admissions of the defendant related to the claim. The defendant did not show that he was entitled to any credits. There was a promise to pay.

As to the law in cases of demurrer, Davis v. Steiner, 2 Harris 275, was referred to.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by WOODWARD, J.

The acknowledgment of a debt, to take it out of the statute of limitations, must be not only unambiguous and express, but must have specific reference to the instrument or amount of indebtedness. If a debtor distinctly recognise his note of hand, his bill, or a book account, barred by the statute of limitations, and promise to pay it, he revives the debt and deprives himself of the protection of the statute. If he acknowledge its existence in terms that are consistent with a promise to pay, the law will imply the promise and hold him liable. In such instances the extent of the liability is readily measured by the instrument acknowledged.

But where there are mutual dealings and unsettled accounts between the parties, he who would enforce a claim after six years and against a plea of the statute, must prove the acknowledgment of a fixed sum, or, at the least, of a balance which admits of a ready and certain ascertainment. If he do not this, to what sum or claim are the confessions of his debtor to be applied? What items, what proportion of the creditor's accounts are to be regarded as the subject of the new promise and thus exempted from the operation of the statute?

In the case before us the plaintiff's claim, as agreed upon, is $130.20, with interest from the 16th June, 1843, yet he first sued it before a justice of the peace. To take it out of the statute he relies on the defendant's declarations before the justice, who swears that the defendant insisted on the statute of limitations before him; that he dismissed the suit; that it was agreed between the parties that they had talked the matter over in the fall of 1847; that the books were not then at home; that Huff...