Barlow v. Barner

2 F. Cas. 830, 1 Dill. 418
United States Circuit Court·Decided July 1, 1871·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM,

(MILLER, Circuit Justice, and DILLON, Circuit Judge, concurring.) Courts, by their decisions as to the effect of loose and unsatisfactory oral admissions and new promises, had almost frittered away the statute of limitations; and to remedy this, statutes similar to the one in force in this state have been quite generally enacted.

The statute of Kansas requires the acknowledgment to be in writing and signed by the party, and the acknowledgment must be of an existing liability with respect to the contract upon which a recovery is sought. The letters relied on by the plaintiff do not acknowledge an existing liability, but rather repel it.

Judgment for the defendant

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

Barlow v. Barner, 2 F. Cas. 830, 1 Dill. 418 (uscirct 1871).

2 F. Cas. 830 (Barlow v. Barner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tankersley v. Cooke
1952 OK 47 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1952)
Dezell v. Thayer
44 P. 686 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1896)