Keenan v. Keenan

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Keenan v. Keenan

37 A. 532, 20 R.I. 105, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 53

DecidedMay 25, 1897

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A. 532 (Keenan v. Keenan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Keenan v. Keenan, 37 A. 532, 20 R.I. 105, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 53 (R.I. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Matteson, C. J.

The words relied on to take the case out of the statute of limitations are, ‘ ‘ I have no money at present, and won’t have any until I sell the house, and then it will be all right with you and me.” If this be regarded as an acknowledgment of an existing debt which the defendant’s intestate was ready and willing to pay, the implied promise is nevertheless a qualified promise to pay when he had sold his house. The debt had long been barred by the statute. *106 In such case the rule is that the creditor takes the promise with the qualification annexed to it, and cannot maintain an action without showing the fulfillment of the qualification. Shaw v. Newell, 1 R. I. 488 ; Sweet v. Franklin, 7 R. I. 355 ; Wiley v. Brown, 18 R. I. 615 ; In re Bethell v. Bethell, L. R. 34 Ch. Div. 561, 565, 566; Boynton v. Moulton, 159 Mass. 248; 1 Wood Lim. 2 ed. § 77. The testimony fails to show a sale of the house, which was to put the intestate in funds with which to pay the plaintiff’s claim. We are of the opinion, therefore, tbat the claim must be regarded as barred by the statute of limitations, and that judgment must be for the defendant for costs.

Thomas F. Vance, for plaintiff. Hugh J. Carroll, for defendant.

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

Matteson, C. J.

The words relied on to take the case out of the statute of limitations are, ‘ ‘ I have no money at present, and won’t have any until I sell the house, and then it will be all right with you and me.” If this be regarded as an acknowledgment of an existing debt which the defendant’s intestate was ready and willing to pay, the implied promise is nevertheless a qualified promise to pay when he had sold his house. The debt had long been barred by the statute. *106 In such case the rule is that the creditor takes the promise with the qualification annexed to it, and cannot maintain an action without showing the fulfillment of the qualification. Shaw v. Newell, 1 R. I. 488 ; Sweet v. Franklin, 7 R. I. 355 ; Wiley v. Brown, 18 R. I. 615 ; In re Bethell v. Bethell, L. R. 34 Ch. Div. 561, 565, 566; Boynton v. Moulton, 159 Mass. 248; 1 Wood Lim. 2 ed. § 77. The testimony fails to show a sale of the house, which was to put the intestate in funds with which to pay the plaintiff’s claim. We are of the opinion, therefore, tbat the claim must be regarded as barred by the statute of limitations, and that judgment must be for the defendant for costs.

Thomas F. Vance, for plaintiff. Hugh J. Carroll, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A. 532, 20 R.I. 105, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keenan-v-keenan-ri-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack