Woodham v. Hill

Citations

• 78 Fla. 517
• 83 So. 717

Syllabus

<p>1. A mere writing enclosing a. cheque of no stated, amount, and for no purpose stated in such letter, and' in no way referring to the debt or account set out in the bill of particulars, upon which plaintiffs sued is not such an acknowledgement of 'or promise to pay ¡as is required by the statute. Section 1717 General Statutes, 1900, Chapter 4375 Acts of 1895.</p> <p>2. A writing for the purpose of showing the acknowledgement of or promise to pay a debt barred by the statute of limitations must be clear and definite and an acknowledgement Of the existence of such indebtedness and a willingness to pay the same. If the expression be equivoqal, vague or indefinite, leading to no certain conclusion, but at best to be probable inferences, which may affect different minds in different ways, they ought not t'o go to the jury as evidence of a new promise to revive the cause of action.</p> <p>3. Every acknowledgement of a promise to pay a debt barred by the statute of limitations must be in writing jand signed by the party to be charged.</p> <p>it. Where a party relies upon an acknowledgement of a debt as provided by tlie statute as a new promise tlie common law form of actions not having been abolished in this State, suits should be brought on the new promise and not on the original debt. Parties litigant should so formulate their pleadings and the introduction of evidence as to conform to applicable common law forms of action.</p> <p>5 The payment of interest, or a part of the debt without an acknowledgement in writing of the principal balance of the debt and a willingness to pay the same, will not take a demand from under the bar 'of the staute of limitations.</p>