Holberg v. E. S. Jaffray & Co.

Mississippi Supreme Court

Holberg v. E. S. Jaffray & Co.

65 Miss. 526

Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1888·Published

Opinion

Campbell, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The acknowledgment of the debt by the defendants in their answer in the suit in Chancery was not sufficient to prevent the bar of the statute of limitations.

“ It was an admission made entirely diverso intuitu,n Roscoe v. Hale, 7 Gray, 274, and that is decisive against it, while there may be other grounds of its insufficiency not necessary to be considered, since one is enough.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Campbell, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The acknowledgment of the debt by the defendants in their answer in the suit in Chancery was not sufficient to prevent the bar of the statute of limitations.

“ It was an admission made entirely diverso intuitu,n Roscoe v. Hale, 7 Gray, 274, and that is decisive against it, while there may be other grounds of its insufficiency not necessary to be considered, since one is enough.

Reversed and remanded.

Holberg v. E. S. Jaffray & Co., 65 Miss. 526 (Mich. 1888).

Pincite

65 Miss. 526 (Holberg v. E. S. Jaffray & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.