Young v. Wetzell

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Young v. Wetzell

30 F. Cas. 868, 3 D.C. 359, 3 Cranch 359

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedDecember 15, 1828

StatusPublished

This text of 30 F. Cas. 868 (Young v. Wetzell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Young v. Wetzell, 30 F. Cas. 868, 3 D.C. 359, 3 Cranch 359 (circtddc 1828).

Pincite

Opinion

The CouRT (Morsell, J., contrá,) instructed the jury, at the prayer of Mr. Key, for the defendant, that such acknowledgment was not sufficient to take the case out of the statute of limitations. See the case of Bell v. Morrison, 1 Peters, 351.

Mr. Woodward, the deputy-marshal, who served the writ, further testified that he had filed the note in the clerk’s office, in this case, and he thinks he mentioned this note to them as the cause of action ; he had no certain recollection that he did, but his impression is that he did'.

The CouRT (Cranch, C. J., doubting,) said that the evidence might be left to the jury; and if they should be of opinion that the promise to pay referred to this cause of action, that promise was sufficient in law to take the case out of the statute.

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

The CouRT (Morsell, J., contrá,) instructed the jury, at the prayer of Mr. Key, for the defendant, that such acknowledgment was not sufficient to take the case out of the statute of limitations. See the case of Bell v. Morrison, 1 Peters, 351.

Mr. Woodward, the deputy-marshal, who served the writ, further testified that he had filed the note in the clerk’s office, in this case, and he thinks he mentioned this note to them as the cause of action ; he had no certain recollection that he did, but his impression is that he did'.

The CouRT (Cranch, C. J., doubting,) said that the evidence might be left to the jury; and if they should be of opinion that the promise to pay referred to this cause of action, that promise was sufficient in law to take the case out of the statute.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 F. Cas. 868, 3 D.C. 359, 3 Cranch 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-wetzell-circtddc-1828.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack