Gemberling v. Myer

2 Yeates 341
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 15, 1798·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Smith, J.

The case of Cockram v. Welbye is not very intelligible. It appears to me that the act of limitation applies to the case before me, and that it forms none of the exceptions thereto. The act is founded on common justice and experience, receipts may be lost and witnesses will die; indeed slender proof of an acknowledgment of the demand will take a case out of the act; and in one instance, (2 Burr. 1099,) it has been determined, that such acknowledgment pending the suit, may be received in evidece. Here nineteen [343] years elapsed after the decree, before any suit was brought, and probably substantial justice will be done. But I consider the point as reserved.

Verdict for the defendants.

[ Yeates, J.

was formerly of counsel in the cause. A new trial was afterwards moved for on the 27th December, in bank, but the court refused to grant the rule to show cause.

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

Gemberling v. Myer, 2 Yeates 341 (Pa. 1798).

2 Yeates 341 (Gemberling v. Myer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Vincent v. Watson
40 Pa. 306 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1861)
Man v. Warner
4 Whart. 455 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1839)
Warner v. Brinton
29 F. Cas. 234 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania, 1835)