Belknap v. Sickles

Citations

• 7 Daly 249

Syllabus

<p>Under § 100 of the (old) Code of Procedure, as amended in 1831 (and before the amendment of 1867), both departure from and residence out of the State were necessary to suspend the running of the statutes of limitations.</p> <p>The amendment of 1867 (L. 1867, c. 781) creating an additional exception, where a party should remain continuously absent from the State for one year or more, was not retrospective, and did not operate to revive claims which, under the statute as it stood previous thereto, were then already barred.</p> <p>Where, therefore, a complaint, anticipating the defense of the statute of limitations, alleged the defendant’s departure from and residence out of this State for certain years prior to 1867, and the defendant answered that during those years he had resided in this State, and had not been absent from it except for limited periods ; Held, that the defendant should not be compelled to make his answer more definite and certain by stating the time of such absences and for what periods they continued.</p>