Penaro v. Flournoy

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Georgia

Penaro v. Flournoy

19 F. Cas. 132, 9 Law Rep. 269

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Georgia

DecidedApril 15, 1846

StatusPublished

This text of 19 F. Cas. 132 (Penaro v. Flournoy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Penaro v. Flournoy, 19 F. Cas. 132, 9 Law Rep. 269 (circtdga 1846).

Pincite

Opinion

NICOLL, District Judge.

The question, whether the evidence of a promise to pay a debt, barred by the statute of limitations, is sufficient to take a case from the operation of the statute, is one of law for the court. Whether the evidence applies to the debt in suit, or to what portion of it, is a question of fact for the jury. In this case the promise was, “I will put up your wages for you;” clearly referring to the wages then due. The court holds the evidence sufficient to take the case out of the statute, for all the [134]*134wages to which the promise applied. It was the province of the jury to say to what portion, or whether to the whole of the wages, the promise applied. The promise was absolute: “I will put up your wages for you.” The jury having found that the promise applied to the whole account, the court is satisfied that the verdict is correct Motion for a new trial overruled.

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

NICOLL, District Judge.

The question, whether the evidence of a promise to pay a debt, barred by the statute of limitations, is sufficient to take a case from the operation of the statute, is one of law for the court. Whether the evidence applies to the debt in suit, or to what portion of it, is a question of fact for the jury. In this case the promise was, “I will put up your wages for you;” clearly referring to the wages then due. The court holds the evidence sufficient to take the case out of the statute, for all the [134]*134wages to which the promise applied. It was the province of the jury to say to what portion, or whether to the whole of the wages, the promise applied. The promise was absolute: “I will put up your wages for you.” The jury having found that the promise applied to the whole account, the court is satisfied that the verdict is correct Motion for a new trial overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 F. Cas. 132, 9 Law Rep. 269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penaro-v-flournoy-circtdga-1846.