Evans v. Smith
34 Me. 33
Opinion
orally. —There is no valid objection to the admissibility of the Avitness. It is not a sound principle that, in order to take a note from the operation of the statute, the indorsement must be made in the handwriting of the debtor. It is the fact of the part-payment within six years from the commencement of the suit, which has that effect. Such a payment is distinctly shown by the testimony, Avhich it is admitted William Evans would give. Defendant defaulted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Evans v. Smith, 34 Me. 33 (Me. 1852).
34 Me. 33 (Evans v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Bryan v. Duff
40 P. 936 (Washington Supreme Court, 1895)
Kisler v. Sanders
40 Ind. 78 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1872)
Wheeler v. Robinson
50 N.H. 303 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1870)