Hazlett v. Stillwagen

Citations

• 23 Pa. Super. 114
• 1903 Pa. Super. LEXIS 23

Syllabus

<p>Statute of limitations — Acknoioledgment of debt — Promise to pay.</p> <p>A clear, distinct and unequivocal acknowledgment of a debt is sufficient to take a case out of the operation of the statute. It must bean admission consistent with a promise to pay. If so, the law will imply the promise without its having been actually or expressly made. There must not be uncertainty as to the particular debt to which the admission applies. It must be so distinct and unambiguous as to remove hesitation in regard to. the debtor’s meaning. The acknowledgment must not be accompanied by any conditions or qualifications inconsistent with an absolute promise to pay generally or on demand.</p> <p>A debtor, in answer to an attorney’s letter requesting payment of a debt represented by a note made five years previously, answered as follows: “I delayed answering yours of October 25th, in the hope that I might be able to send you a substantial payment upon the S. Hazlett account, but find it impossible at this time to do so. There are some unfinished matters from which I hope to realize considerable money within the next ninety days, bnt this of course will not meet your present demands. In the event of your client being willing to wait until that time, however, I feel justified in saying that I will be able to at least reduce the claim. More than this, I cannot promise from anything in sight.” Held, that the letter was insufficient to stop the running of the statute of limitations, or to give a new starting point for the running of the statute.</p>