Chambers v. Marks
This text of 25 Pa. 296 (Chambers v. Marks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Where there have been mutual accounts between two persons within six years, the statute of limitations does not apply to any part of either account.
It makes no difference that both accounts were kept by one of the parties. It is, perhaps, doubtful whether it is necessary that the accounts should be kept in writing at all.
When one has an account against another, the whole or a part of which is older than six years, he cannot take it all out of the statute by merely entering a credit. The credit, to have that effect, must be authenticated and proved to have been intended as a payment on the account.
This was a suit for a balance on book account. The plaintiff’s book showed several credits within six years, and it was proved, moreover, that the items of credit were delivered on account, and credited agreeably to the defendant’s request. The parties must settle as if the statute of limitations had never been passed.
Judgment reversed and venire facias de novo awarded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
25 Pa. 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chambers-v-marks-pa-1855.