Downs v. Wells' Adm'rs

New York Supreme Court

Downs v. Wells' Adm'rs

14 N.Y.S. 566, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 40, 60 Hun 579, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2402

DecidedMay 11, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 14 N.Y.S. 566 (Downs v. Wells' Adm'rs) 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

Downs v. Wells' Adm'rs, 14 N.Y.S. 566, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 40, 60 Hun 579, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2402 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Dykman, J.

In the month of January, 1864, Phineas Tuthill made a promissory note for $112.50, which was left with the defendants’ intestate, who, with four others, including the plaintiff, were equally interested in the note. The defendants’ intestate died in September, 1871, and they were appointed his administrators soon after his death. Phineas Tuthill died in August, 1888, and this action was commenced about two years thereafter, for the recovery of the plaintiff’s share of the Tuthill note. A trial was had in the county court of Suffolk county, and the plaintiff recovered a verdict. From the judgment entered upon the verdict the defendants appealed to the general term of this court, where the judgment was reversed, and a new trial ordered. A new trial has now been had, and at the close of the plaintiff’s ease his complaint was dismissed, upon the ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations, and the plaintiff has again appealed to this court. The case shows plainly that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations, and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

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

Dykman, J.

In the month of January, 1864, Phineas Tuthill made a promissory note for $112.50, which was left with the defendants’ intestate, who, with four others, including the plaintiff, were equally interested in the note. The defendants’ intestate died in September, 1871, and they were appointed his administrators soon after his death. Phineas Tuthill died in August, 1888, and this action was commenced about two years thereafter, for the recovery of the plaintiff’s share of the Tuthill note. A trial was had in the county court of Suffolk county, and the plaintiff recovered a verdict. From the judgment entered upon the verdict the defendants appealed to the general term of this court, where the judgment was reversed, and a new trial ordered. A new trial has now been had, and at the close of the plaintiff’s ease his complaint was dismissed, upon the ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations, and the plaintiff has again appealed to this court. The case shows plainly that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations, and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 N.Y.S. 566, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 40, 60 Hun 579, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/downs-v-wells-admrs-nysupct-1891.