Fletcher v. Gillan

62 Miss. 8
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1884
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 62 Miss. 8 (Fletcher v. Gillan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fletcher v. Gillan, 62 Miss. 8 (Mich. 1884).

Opinion

Chalmers, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The suit was upon an open account, to which a plea of the statute of limitations was interposed. The plaintiff replied a promise in writing within three years, and to support the replication introduced two letters from the defendant. In one of these he said, [11]*11After bands are paid appropriate balance due on my account to yourself.” In tbe other he said, I would like to come there and do your work, so I could pay you what I owe you.” It is insisted that this amounted to an acknowledgment of the debt, as well as a promise to pay it.

This contention cannot be maintained. There is neither a specification of the debt referred to, nor any promise to pay a fixed amount, both of which are necessary to support a new promise. The court correctly held that there was nothing to take the debt out of the statute of limitations, but a small part of the items composing it were bought less than three years before' the commencement of the suit. There was a small credit indorsed on the account, larger in amount than these items, and this credit the court applied to the items not barred, or, in other words, to the last items of the account, thus extinguishing the whole of it.

This was erroneous. The credit was not dated, and there was no parol proof in the case, nor is there anything to denote any appropriation of the credit by either party. Where a payment is made upon an account without any application of it, the law applies it to the first items in the account. Here, therefore, in the absence of any proof, the credit should have been applied to the first items of the account, and this would have left the last items unbarred and unpaid. The plaintiff therefore was entitled to a judgment for the small sum of about eight dollars unbarred at the commencement of the suit.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Harrison Enterprises, Inc. v. Trilogy Communications, Inc.
818 So. 2d 1088 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2002)
EB, Inc. v. Smith
757 So. 2d 1017 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 2000)
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Krebs
190 So. 2d 857 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1966)
J. R. Watkins Co. v. Buchanan
115 So. 773 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1928)
W. T. Raleigh Co. v. Fortenberry
103 So. 227 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1925)
Taylor v. De Soto Lumber Co.
102 So. 260 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1924)
Duffey v. Kilroe
76 So. 681 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1917)
Outwaters v. Brownlee
135 P. 300 (California Court of Appeal, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 Miss. 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fletcher-v-gillan-miss-1884.