General

Davis v. Van Zandt

2 D.C. 2082 Cranch 208·United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia·1820

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

Davis v. Van Zandt. A promise to pay “ when able,” will take the case out of the statute of limitations, without proof that the defendant has since been able to pay the debt. Assumpsit, against the maker of a nóte. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations. Upon the trial the plaintiff proved that within three years, the defendant promised to pay when he'should be able. Mr. Wallach, for the defendant, contended that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant is or has been, since the promise, able to pay. [MAJORITY — the CouRT] But the CouRT {nan. con.) said it was not necessary to prove that fact to take the note out of the statute of limitations. The action.is brought on the note, and not on the new promise. (But see Wetzel v. Bussard, 11 Wheat. 309; Read v. Wilkinson, 2 Wash. C. C. Rep. 514; Lonsdale v. Brown, 3 Wash. C. C. Rep. 404.)