Gardner v. Peyton

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Gardner v. Peyton

9 F. Cas. 1196, 5 Cranch 561

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedMay 15, 1839

DocketCase No. 5,234

StatusPublished

This text of 9 F. Cas. 1196 (Gardner v. Peyton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gardner v. Peyton, 9 F. Cas. 1196, 5 Cranch 561 (circtddc 1839).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, .absent,)

on general demurrer, decided that the plea of non assumpsit infra quinqué aunos, was not a good plea to an action upon :such a promise.

At the trial, upon the issue on the plea of actio non accrevit, Mr. Neale, for the defendant, contended that the action accrued upon the receipt of the money by the defendant, and cited 3 Bl. Comm. 25; Laws Va. Nov. 19, 1792, p. 97, § 12; Laws Va. Dec. 19, 1792, for limitation of actions, p. 107, § 4; Taylor v. Armstead, 3 Call, 200; Kinney v. McClure, 1 Rand. [Va.] 284; 2 Har. Dig. 1458; Manning’s Index, 57; 2 Tuck. Bl. Comm. 388, 430; and thereupon moved the court for an instruction to the jury to that effect.

But THE COURT refused, and stopped Mr. Taylor, for the plaintiff, who was about to reply; being of opinion that the cause of action did not accrue until demand of payment, and the defendant’s refusal to pay.

Verdict for the plaintiff.

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

THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, .absent,)

on general demurrer, decided that the plea of non assumpsit infra quinqué aunos, was not a good plea to an action upon :such a promise.

At the trial, upon the issue on the plea of actio non accrevit, Mr. Neale, for the defendant, contended that the action accrued upon the receipt of the money by the defendant, and cited 3 Bl. Comm. 25; Laws Va. Nov. 19, 1792, p. 97, § 12; Laws Va. Dec. 19, 1792, for limitation of actions, p. 107, § 4; Taylor v. Armstead, 3 Call, 200; Kinney v. McClure, 1 Rand. [Va.] 284; 2 Har. Dig. 1458; Manning’s Index, 57; 2 Tuck. Bl. Comm. 388, 430; and thereupon moved the court for an instruction to the jury to that effect.

But THE COURT refused, and stopped Mr. Taylor, for the plaintiff, who was about to reply; being of opinion that the cause of action did not accrue until demand of payment, and the defendant’s refusal to pay.

Verdict for the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 F. Cas. 1196, 5 Cranch 561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-v-peyton-circtddc-1839.