Ferguson v. . Taylor

2 N.C. 20
Superior Court of North Carolina·Decided April 5, 1793·Published

Opinion

Here is no acknowledgment of the debt, but only acknowledgment it was not paid. There must be an acknowledgment of the debt. The authorities cited, which are 2 Burr., 1097, and Doug., 652, went upon the acknowledgment of the debt, not of a fact which shows it to be unsatisfied; and the jury found accordingly.

See, also, Bank v. Sneed, 10 N.C. 500, in which counsel took an extended view of all the cases upon the subject, and the Court recognized the principle of those which require an acknowledgment of a present subsisting debt to take a case out of the statute.

Cited: Wells v. Hill, 118 N.C. 907.

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

Ferguson v. . Taylor, 2 N.C. 20 (N.C. Ct. App. 1793).

2 N.C. 20 (Ferguson v. . Taylor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bank of Newbern v. Sneed
10 N.C. 500 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1825)
Wells v. Hill
118 N.C. 900 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1896)