Barker v. Millard

16 Wend. 572
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1837
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 16 Wend. 572 (Barker v. Millard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Barker v. Millard, 16 Wend. 572 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1837).

Opinion

By the Court, Bronson, J.

The statute commenced running in December, 1825, when the note fell due; and the question presented by the replication depends on the former statute of limitations, 1 R. L. 186, § 5. This section corresponds with the statute, 21 Jac. 1, c. § 3, 4, and cer[573]*573tain cases have been held within the equity, though not within the letter of the first and second provisoes of the section. Where the action is brought within six years, and the plaintiff dies before judgment, his executor or administrator may have a new action within the equity of the first proviso. So, if an action brought by a feme sole abate by her marriage, she and her husband may have a new action within the equity of the statute. 2 Saund. 63, f. g., note 6. Huntington v. Brinckerhoff, 10 Wendell, 278. But no case was cited, nor have I met with any, where it was held that an injunction out of chancery would suspend the running of the statute. Indeed the contrary doctrine is strongly implied in many cases. The party to a suit in chancery has often applied to that court to restrain the defendant from setting up the statute in an action at law. If the pendency of the injunction would be a good answer to a plea of the statute of limitations, such an application would not have been necessary. Anon. 1 Vern. 74. Anon. 2 Atk. 1. Gilbert v. Emerson, 2 Vern. 503. Bac. Ab., Limitation of Actions, E. 6. Blanshard on Limitation, 164. Vin. Ab., Limitation, T. It is clear that the case is not within the letter of either of the provisoes, and the equity of the statute has never been extended far enough to aid the plaintiff.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re Gallaudet
129 Misc. 751 (New York Supreme Court, 1927)
Dawes v. New York, Philadelphia & Norfolk R. Co.
32 S.E. 778 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1899)
Whittemore v. Sills
76 Mo. App. 248 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1898)
North British & Mercantile Ins. v. Lathrop
70 F. 429 (Fourth Circuit, 1895)
Davis v. Andrews
30 S.W. 432 (Texas Supreme Court, 1895)
McCan v. E. Conery & Son
12 F. 315 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Louisiana, 1882)
Wilkinson v. First National Fire Insurance Co. of Worcester
72 N.Y. 499 (New York Court of Appeals, 1878)
Lee v. Leachman
22 Ala. 452 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1853)
Robertson v. Alford
21 Miss. 509 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1850)
Bucklin v. Ford
5 Barb. 393 (New York Supreme Court, 1849)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 Wend. 572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barker-v-millard-nysupct-1837.