Smith v. Eastman
This text of 57 Mass. 355 (Smith v. Eastman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Prima facie, and upon a mere comparison of dates, this action is barred by the statute of limitations. This could only be avoided by proving a promise in writing. Rev. Sts. c. 120, § 13. To prove such promise, the plaintiff offered evidence of two notes, indorsed by third persons, upon an agreement of the plaintiff, to take a part for the whole. ■
This was not an admission of a debt, but a compromise and promise to pay part for the whole. The notes, which the defendant made and presented to Bayley, were not a promise to pay this debt, but they were indorsed notes, offered as a compliance with the proposed compromise, not accepted by the plaintiff, but afterwards returned by the agent. There is no color for saying, that this was a promise in writing to pay the original debt sued for in this action.
Exceptions overruled, with double costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
57 Mass. 355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-eastman-mass-1849.