Safford v. Barney
| Decision Date | 14 November 1876 |
| Citation | 121 Mass. 300 |
| Parties | Eben H. Safford v. Horace Barney, administrator |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Writ dated Feb. 3, 1876. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after judgment for the plaintiff for the balance claimed, to this court, on appeal, on an agreed statement of facts in substance as follows:
The newspaper was delivered weekly to the intestate at his request, who made and delivered to the plaintiff the stands as credited in the account annexed, in part payment for the sum then due for the paper. The plaintiff, from time to time, and usually in January of every year, requested payment from the defendant of the amount then due. Bean died in the fall of 1874, and the defendant was soon after appointed administrator of his estate.
If the statute of limitations applied to the plaintiff's account, judgment was to be entered for the plaintiff for $ 4.50, and interest from the date of the writ; otherwise, for the plaintiff for $ 74.00 with interest from the date of the writ.
Judgment affirmed.
J. P. Jones, for the plaintiff.
N. C. Berry, for the defendant.
Under the Gen. Sts. c. 155, § 5, which provide that, "in actions of contract, brought to recover the balance due upon a mutual and open account current, the cause of action shall be deemed to have accrued at the time of the last item proved in the account," it is sufficient to prove mutual dealings between the parties, consisting of sales made, or services performed, by each party, to or for the other, creating mutual debts, and which by mutual agreement are to be set off against one another, and are entered in an account stated by the plaintiff, even if no balance has been struck; and the statute of limitations begins to run only from the date of the last item on either side of the account. The case is governed by Penniman v. Rotch, 3 Met. 216.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Markiewicz v. Toton
... ... tanto,’ as they accrued. Eldridge v. Smith, ... 144 Mass. 35, 37, 10 N.E. 717; Safford v. Barney, ... 121 Mass. 300; Kingsley v. Delano, 169 Mass. 285, 47 ... N.E. 1013; Harding v. Covell, 217 Mass. 120, 104 ... N.E. 452; Howland v ... ...
-
Kennedy v. Drake
...we are of opinion that the judge ruled rightly that there was no mutual and open account current between the parties. Safford v. Barney, 121 Mass. 300;Eldridge v. Smith, 144 Mass. 35, 10 N. E. 717;Kingsley v. Delano, 169 Mass. 285, 47 N. E. 1013. We are of opinion that the cash payment of $......
-
Harding v. Covell
... ... Union Bank v ... Knapp, 3 Pick. 96, 110, 15 Am. Dec. 181; Belchertown ... v. Bridgman, 118 Mass. 486; Safford v. Barney, ... 121 Mass. 300 ... 2. For ... like reasons, it cannot be held that the statute of ... limitations began to run ... ...
-
Kingsley v. Delano
...v. Day, 149 Mass. 185, 21 N.E. 359; Dewing v. Dewing, 165 Mass. 230, 42 N.E. 1128; Whipple v. Blackington, 97 Mass. 476; Safford v. Barney, 121 Mass. 300; Eldridge Smith, 144 Mass. 35, 10 N.E. 717. We think, however, that in one respect there was an error. The defendant declined to plead in......