Thompson v. Peter

Supreme Court

Thompson v. Peter

25 U.S. 565, 6 L. Ed. 730, 12 Wheat. 565, 1827 U.S. LEXIS 412

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 18, 1827

StatusPublished

Cited by30 cases

This text of 25 U.S. 565 (Thompson v. Peter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thompson v. Peter, 25 U.S. 565, 6 L. Ed. 730, 12 Wheat. 565, 1827 U.S. LEXIS 412 (1827).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Marshall

delivered the opinion of the Court,

*567 This was a suit brought in September, 1822, on a promise alleged to have been made by the intestate of the defendant, who died in the year 1808. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, and the'statute of limitations, on which pleas issue was joined. By consent of parties a verdict was found fortlie plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court, whether the evidence which is stated in a case made by the parties, be sufficient to be left to the jury as evidence of a subsequent acknowledgment, competent to take the case out of the statute of limitations. The Court gave judgment for the defendants, which judgment is now before this Court on a writ of error.

The Court is of opinion that the Circuit Court decided rightly. The original administrator, David Peter, did not acknowledge the debt, but said there were no funds in hánd to pay the debts of the testator. This language might be -used by a person not intending to give any validity to the claim, and ignorant of its real merits. The conversation with one of the present defendants, George Peter, was still further from being an acknowledgment. Had this even been a suit against the original debtor, these declarations would not have bee'.’ sufficient .0 take the case out of the statute. The Cases cited from 8 Cranch's Rep. 72. and 11 Wheat. Rep. 209. are expressly in point. But this is not a suit against. the origirial debtor. It is brought against his representative, who may have no personal knowledge of the transaction. Declarations against him ‘have never been held to take the promise of a testator or intestate out of the act. Indeed, the contrary has been held.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Marshall

delivered the opinion of the Court,

*567 This was a suit brought in September, 1822, on a promise alleged to have been made by the intestate of the defendant, who died in the year 1808. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, and the'statute of limitations, on which pleas issue was joined. By consent of parties a verdict was found fortlie plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court, whether the evidence which is stated in a case made by the parties, be sufficient to be left to the jury as evidence of a subsequent acknowledgment, competent to take the case out of the statute of limitations. The Court gave judgment for the defendants, which judgment is now before this Court on a writ of error.

The Court is of opinion that the Circuit Court decided rightly. The original administrator, David Peter, did not acknowledge the debt, but said there were no funds in hánd to pay the debts of the testator. This language might be -used by a person not intending to give any validity to the claim, and ignorant of its real merits. The conversation with one of the present defendants, George Peter, was still further from being an acknowledgment. Had this even been a suit against the original debtor, these declarations would not have bee'.’ sufficient .0 take the case out of the statute. The Cases cited from 8 Cranch's Rep. 72. and 11 Wheat. Rep. 209. are expressly in point. But this is not a suit against. the origirial debtor. It is brought against his representative, who may have no personal knowledge of the transaction. Declarations against him ‘have never been held to take the promise of a testator or intestate out of the act. Indeed, the contrary has been held.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 U.S. 565, 6 L. Ed. 730, 12 Wheat. 565, 1827 U.S. LEXIS 412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-peter-scotus-1827.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack