Maciel v. Kalua

Citations

• 24 Haw. 216
• 1918 Haw. LEXIS 58

Syllabus

<p>Limitation of Actions — part payment as evidence of new promise.</p> <p>In an action on a promissory note which on its face was barred by tbe statute of limitations, there appeared an endorsement showing that $450 had been paid by the check of a stranger to the note and no showing was made that he was requested by either of the makers of the note to make the payment or that he was their agent authorized for that purpose, held: That in order for this payment to have the effect of a new promise it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to show that the one making the payment did so at the request of the debtor or that he was the agent of the debtor fully authorized for that purpose.</p> <p>Same — new promise — time when made must he shown.</p> <p>The plaintiff having shown by the note itself that more than six years elapsed between the date on which the note matured and the commencement of action thereon where he relies upon a new promise to take the case out of the statute, the new promise must be shown to have been made within six years of the commencement of the action, otherwise the new promise will itself be barred.</p> <p>Same — same—evidence of new promise.</p> <p>Where the debtor stated to the creditor in effect, I am fighting the case against the estate and expect to win out; and then I expect to pay you in full, held: This is not an unconditional promise to pay and is not sufficient to take the case out of the statute.</p>