Jackson v. Varick
2 Wend. 294
Opinion
It is said that the defendant will not be able to recover from his grantor beyond six years interest on his covenant of warranty, and that therefore this case should form an exception to the general rule which governs in these cases. We do not think so. The rule is uniform, that if a party neglects to plead the statute of limitations, he loses his plea. The statute of limitations is a strict defence, and if the party lets it slip, the court will not relieve him. The motion is denied, with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Jackson v. Varick, 2 Wend. 294 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1829).
2 Wend. 294 (Jackson v. Varick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Ledbetter v. Ledbetter
216 S.W.2d 718 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1949)
Inhabitants of West Hoboken v. Syms
9 A. 780 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1887)
In re Bear
8 F. 428 (S.D. New York, 1881)
Gilchrist v. Gilchrist's Executors
44 How. Pr. 317 (New York Supreme Court, 1873)
Woodruff v. Dickie
5 Rob. 619 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1866)
Morris v. Slatery
6 Abb. Pr. 74 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1857)
Bates v. Voorhies
7 How. Pr. 234 (New York Supreme Court, 1852)
Dicken v. Johnson
7 Ga. 484 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1849)
Bird v. Adams
7 Ga. 505 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1849)
Lovett v. Cowman
6 Hill & Den. 223 (New York Supreme Court, 1843)
Beach v. President of the Fulton Bank
3 Wend. 573 (Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, 1829)