Montgomery v. Cunningham
| Decision Date | 29 October 1883 |
| Citation | 104 Pa. 349 |
| Parties | Montgomery <I>versus</I> Cunningham. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before MERCUR, C. J., GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY and STERRETT, JJ. GREEN, J., absent. CLARK, J., did not sit.
ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana county: Of October and November Term 1883, No. 112.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Harry White (J. A. C. Ruffner with him), for the plaintiff in error.
J. N. Banks (D. S. Porter with him), for the defendant in error.
The opinion of the court was filed October 29th 1883.
The refusal of a motion to strike out evidence received without objection, is not the subjeet of a bill of exceptions: Ashton v. Sproule, 11 Casey 492; Oswald v. Kennedy, 12 Wright 9; Yeager v. Weaver, 14 P. F. Smith 425. Moreover the parol evidence referred to in the first specification of error, was followed by the certificate of discharge being given in evidence.
The plaintiff has no just cause of complaint with the charge of the court as to the evidence of the kind of admission necessary to take the case out of the operation of the statute of limitations. The acknowledgment must be clear, distinct and unequivocal: Palmer v. Gillespie, 14 Norris 340. It must be such that a promise is clearly implied: Id. We see no error to correct.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spiking v. Consolidated Ry. & Power Co.
... ... 98, 17 N.W. 734; Hall v. Ernest, 36 Barb. 585; ... Oswald v. Kennedy, 48 Pa. 9; Lowery v ... Robinson, 141 Pa. 189, 21 A. 513; Montgomery v ... Cunningham, 104 Pa. 349; McCoy v. Munro, 78 ... N.Y.S. 849; Parker v. Paine, 76 N.Y.S. 942; ... Treschman v. Treschman [Ind. App.], ... ...
-
Lowrey v. Robinson
...White, 77 Pa. 20. The acknowledgment of the debt was sufficient: Palmer v. Gillespie, 95 Pa. 340; Wesner v. Stein, 97 Pa. 322; Montgomery v. Cunningham, supra; Bolton King, 105 Pa. 78; Landis v. Roth, 109 Pa. 621; Shaeffer v. Hoffman, 113 Pa. 1, Yost v. Grim, 116 Pa. 527. Before PAXSON, C.J......
-
Patterson v. Neuer
... ... to be paid, and promised nothing absolutely. It was little ... more than an offer of compromise. The case of Montgomery ... v. Cunningham, 104 Pa. 349, was, in part, an action for ... money lent, but the fact that the amount was not stated in ... the conversation ... ...
-
McCollum v. McCollum
...was sufficient evidence to toll the running of the statute: Markee v. Reyburn, 258 Pa. 277; Patterson v. Neuer, 165 Pa. 66; Montgomery v. Cunningham, 104 Pa. 349; Yaw Kerr, 47 Pa. 333; Henry v. Zurflieh, 203 Pa. 440; Peters' Estate, 20 Pa.Super. 223; Senseman v. Hershman, 82 Pa. 83; Maniata......