Warren v. Cleveland

• Decision Date: 10 October 1903
• Citation: 76 S.W. 910
• Parties: WARREN v. CLEVELAND et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

76 S.W. 910

WARREN v. CLEVELAND et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

October 10, 1903.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Monroe County; T. M. McConnell, Chancellor.

Suit by J. C. Warren, as executor, etc., against M. N. Cleveland and others. From a decree of the Court of Chancery Appeals for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Young & Young, for appellant. W. Morris Harrison and McCroskey & Peace, for appellees.

NEIL, J.

In the course of administration of the estate of D. H. Cleveland a controversy arose over the claim of Mrs. Hudson for about $1,200.

It was insisted by the executor that this claim was barred by the statute of limitations, and the chancellor found in favor of this contention.

After stating that the consideration of this claim was the boarding of Mrs. Hudson's younger sisters, and that the justice of the debt had been proven, the Court of Chancery Appeals found as follows:

"But we are satisfied from the proof that her claim is clearly barred by the statute of limitations, which was interposed by the executor of her father to the allowance of the claim. It is true there is some proof in the record, undisputed, that Mr. Cleveland, her father, recognized this claim up till a short time before his death; but the proof fails, clearly, we think, to show that he made any promise to pay it within six years before his death."

Upon this finding of facts the Court of Chancery Appeals ruled the law as follows:

"The law is that the mere recognition of a claim or debt will not prevent the operation of the statute of limitation against it. It requires not only recognition, but a distinct and unconditional promise to pay it, to prevent the running of the statute."

The point of the assignment is that a mere recognition of the debt is sufficient to take the case out of the operation of the statute.

We have been unable to find sufficient authority in our decisions to support this contention. The cases that come nearest to it are the following: Harwell v. McCullock, 2 Overt. 275, 278; Russel v. Gass, Mart. & Y. 271-274; Partee v. Badget, 4 Yerg. 174, 26 Am. Dec. 220; Hunter v. Starkes, 8 Humph. 656; Luna v. Edmiston, 5 Sneed, 160. All of these cases, except Hunter v. Starkes, state, in substance, that an unconditional acknowledgment of the indebtedness is sufficient to remove the bar of the statute. In the latter case (Hunter v. Starkes) it is held that an admission that the amount claimed by the contract has never been paid is as sufficient for the purpose as a direct promise to pay. This case is substantially an authority for the position assumed by counsel for Mrs. Hudson, and if it stood alone, or even if it stood only with the other cases just cited, we should be content to hold that a recognition of the debt within six years would be sufficient. But we have a long line of cases which hold that, in order to...