Author: Thomas Sergeant

Publisher:

Published: 2015-07-10

Total Pages: 494

ISBN-13: 9781331097754

Excerpt from Reports Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court Pennsylvania, Vol. 11 Under the circumstances, it is the opinion of the court that the rule for arbitration was illegally entered and the award should be set aside. Though a slight acknowledgment of a debt will take it out of the act of limitations, yet if the debtor qualify his acknowledgment so as to show a determination not to pay, the act will take effect. Therefore where a debtor on being called on for payment of a promissory note, more than six years after it became due, said, that as there had been no money transactions between himself and the plaintiff previous to or during the year 1812, he was surprised at the demand; that he owed him nothing on the of account mentioned, and referred him to his final discharge under the act of 13th March, 1812, it was held, that the debt was barred by the act of limitations, notwithstanding the act of 1812, was unconstitutional and void. The operation of the act of limitations was not suspended, while the act of 13th March, 1812, "for the relief of insolvent debtors residing in the city and county of Philadelphia and their creditors," was held by the courts of this state to be constitutional and valid. In the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia, a case was stated for the opinion of the court, which, for the purpose of a writ of error, was to be considered as a special verdict. It set forth the following facts. On the 17th of April, 1812, Edward Hudson, the defendant below, drew a promissory note in favour of Cornelius & Andrew Conrad, & Co. for 500 dollars, payable sixty days after date, which was indorsed by the payees to Mathew Carey, the plaintiff. On the 5th of September, 1812, the defendant obtained a certicate of discharge under the act of assembly of this state, passed the 13th of March, 1812, entitled "an act for the relief of insolvent debtors residing in the city and county of Philadelphia, and their creditors." On the 31st of March, 1817, the Supreme Court of the state of Pennsylvania, decided in the case of the Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v. Smith, 3 Serg. & Rawle, 63, that the said act of assembly was constitutional; and upon a joinder in demurrer to the defendant's plea of a certificate of discharge under the said act, judgment was rendered for the defendant. That case having been removed, by writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States, the said judgment was on the 13th February, 1821, reversed, on the ground that the said act of assembly of the 13th of March, 1812, was unconstitutional and void. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.