Wolfe v. Whiteman

Superior Court of Delaware

Wolfe v. Whiteman

4 Del. 246

DecidedJuly 5, 1845

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Del. 246 (Wolfe v. Whiteman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wolfe v. Whiteman, 4 Del. 246 (Del. Ct. App. 1845).

Pincite

Opinion

On a note payable on or after sight, the act of limitation does not begin to run until si demand is made.

A presentment with a request of payment, or a new note, is a good demand.

This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, dated' August 29th, 1837, payable thirty days after sight. The defence was the act of limitation, and set off of a book account, beginning in 1825, and ending in 1830 ; to which the plaintiff replied the act of limitation. The plaintiff proved the execution of the note and a presentment, about August 20th, 1843, for payment or a new note,, with a view to prevent the running of the act.

replied that this note_bein^^payable thirty days after sight, the cause of action' did not ©ee-úr, and the statute could not begin to run until a demand ; that there was.no evidence of a presentment previous to August, 1843 ; and that the demand for payment, or a new note, was a lawful presentment: of which opinion was the court; and the matters of discount being clearly barred by the statute, the plaintiff had a verdict for the amount of the note with interest from the time of presentment. (Chitty on Cont. 311; 2 Taunt. 323.)

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

On a note payable on or after sight, the act of limitation does not begin to run until si demand is made.

A presentment with a request of payment, or a new note, is a good demand.

This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, dated' August 29th, 1837, payable thirty days after sight. The defence was the act of limitation, and set off of a book account, beginning in 1825, and ending in 1830 ; to which the plaintiff replied the act of limitation. The plaintiff proved the execution of the note and a presentment, about August 20th, 1843, for payment or a new note,, with a view to prevent the running of the act.

replied that this note_bein^^payable thirty days after sight, the cause of action' did not ©ee-úr, and the statute could not begin to run until a demand ; that there was.no evidence of a presentment previous to August, 1843 ; and that the demand for payment, or a new note, was a lawful presentment: of which opinion was the court; and the matters of discount being clearly barred by the statute, the plaintiff had a verdict for the amount of the note with interest from the time of presentment. (Chitty on Cont. 311; 2 Taunt. 323.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Del. 246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolfe-v-whiteman-delsuperct-1845.