Arthur & Co. v. Burke
Citations
- 83 Wash. 690
- 145 P. 974
- 1915 Wash. LEXIS 732
Syllabus
<p>Limitation of Actions — What Law Governs — Law of Forum. Where a creditor elects to sue in this state, where the debtor had resided ever since the inception of the debt, the statute of limitations of the forum governs.</p> <p>Same — -Defense. The statute of limitations is not an unconscionable defense, but a declaration of legislative policy to be respected by the courts.</p> <p>• Limitation of Actions — Tolling Statute- — Partial Payments— Burden of Proof. Credits of partial payments do not toll the statute of limitations unless a voluntary payment was authorized or ratified by the debtor; mere indorsement is not competent proof of the date of payment, and the burden of proof rests upon the party asserting it.</p> <p>Same — Tolling Statute — Credit on Notes — Intention of Debtor —Evidence—Sufficiency. Indorsements of partial payments upon notes are not sufficient to toll the statute of limitations where it appears that the debtor, then owing $600 on account, without regard to consigned goods, reconsigned the goods held on consignment for sale on commission with directions to credit his account with the proceeds when the goods were sold, and two years later, at the request of the creditor, executed notes for the $600 representing the balance due on account, upon which credits were later indorsed for antecedent sales of the reconsigned goods, the date of which sales were not shown but which must have been more than six years prior to the commencement of the action; since all intention of the debtor to have credits indorsed on the notes was negatived by the fact that the notes were not made until two years after the arrangement for such credits, and that no reference thereto was made at the time the notes were given.</p> <p>Same — Part Payments — Revival of Debt — Evidence — Sufficiency. A barred debt is not revived by part payment unless the circumstances show a clear and unequivocal intention on the part of the obligor to revive the whole debt; and assent to a re
Judges: Ellis
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
16 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Cost Management Services, Inc. v. City of LakewoodWashington Supreme Court· 2013-10-10· cited 49×
- Western Coal & Mining Co. v. HilvertArizona Supreme Court· 1945-07-02· cited 31×
- Belcher v. Tacoma Eastern RailroadWashington Supreme Court· 1917-11-14· cited 20×
- Pessemier v. ZellerSupreme Court of Kansas· 1936-12-12· cited 19×
- O'NEIL v. Estate of MurthaCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1997-12-08· cited 18×
- Keen v. O'ROURKEWashington Supreme Court· 1955-12-01· cited 17×
- Davis v. RogersWashington Supreme Court· 1924-01-24· cited 17×
- Bilanko v. Barclay Court Owners Ass'nWashington Supreme Court· 2016-04-28· cited 15×
- Wickwire v. ReardWashington Supreme Court· 1951-01-04· cited 14×
- Guy F. Atkinson Co. v. StateWashington Supreme Court· 1965-07-08· cited 14×
- Farmers & Mechanics Bank v. San Poil Consolidated Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1923-08-24· cited 11×
- Berteloot v. RemillardWashington Supreme Court· 1924-09-18· cited 9×
- Havas v. LongNevada Supreme Court· 1969-04-30· cited 5×
- Eureka Cedar Lumber & Shingle Co. v. KnackWashington Supreme Court· 1917-03-21· cited 4×
- Sanders v. BrownWashington Supreme Court· 1923-02-17· cited 2×
- Cost Mgmt. Servs. v. City of LakewoodWashington Supreme Court· 2013-10-10
Cites
26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Good v. EhrlichSupreme Court of Kansas· 1903-05-09· cited 27×
- Wolford v. CookSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1898-01-06· cited 26×
- Stubblefield v. McAuliffWashington Supreme Court· 1898-12-30· cited 25×
- Campbell v. BaldwinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1881-01-07· cited 20×
- Harding v. GrimOregon Supreme Court· 1894-05-03· cited 20×
- Dundee Investment Co. v. HornerOregon Supreme Court· 1897-03-16· cited 14×
- Perkins v. JenningsWashington Supreme Court· 1902-01-04· cited 13×
- Arnold v. DowningNew York Supreme Court· 1852-01-13· cited 10×
- Thomas v. PriceWashington Supreme Court· 1903-12-12· cited 9×
- Freundt v. HahnWashington Supreme Court· 1901-01-17· cited 8×
- Briscoe v. HuffMissouri Court of Appeals· 1898-05-02· cited 8×
- Bassett v. ThrallWashington Supreme Court· 1899-06-12· cited 7×
- Samuel v. Samuel's Admr.Court of Appeals of Kentucky· 1912-12-17· cited 7×
- Hastie v. BurrageSupreme Court of Kansas· 1904-06-11· cited 7×
- United States Trust Co. v. StantonNew York Supreme Court· 1894-02-12· cited 5×
- Scott v. ChristensonOregon Supreme Court· 1905-04-28· cited 5×
- Chapman v. HoggMissouri Court of Appeals· 1909-02-23· cited 4×
- Becker v. OliverThird Circuit· 1901-11-25· cited 4×
- Schlotfeldt v. BullWashington Supreme Court· 1897-10-27· cited 3×
- Sawyer v. LufkinSupreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1870-07-01· cited 3×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.