HOPKIRK
v.
BELL
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court held that a statute of limitations did not bar a plaintiff's claim on a promissory note because the time period before the Revolutionary War could not be added to the time after the Treaty of Peace of 1783 to satisfy the limitations period, and a debt-collecting agent was not a "factor" within the meaning of the statute's exception clause.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The Court ordered the following opinion to be certified to the circuit court. — Upon the question, in this case, referred to this court from the circuit court, it is considered by this court, that the said act of limitations is not a bar to the plaintiff’s demand on the said note ; and this court is of opinion, that the length of time from the giving the note to the commencement of the war, in 1775, not being sufficient to bar the demand on the said note, according to the said act of assembly, the treaty of peace between Great Britain and the United States, of 1783, does not admit of adding the time previous to the war, to any time subsequent to the treaty, in order to make a bar : and is also of opinion, that the agent merely for collecting debts, mentioned and described in the said state of facts, is not to be considered as a factor within the meaning of the said act of assembly, so as to bring the case within the proviso of said act. But this the court is not to be understood as giving an opinion on the construction of the note, as to the time of payment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Mo. v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (U.S. 1920)
-
Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (U.S. 2008)…, this Court first interpreted the treaty prior to finding it domestically enforceable. See, e. g., United States v. Rauseher, 119 U. S. 407, 422-423 (1886) (holding that the treaty required extradition only for specified offenses); Hopkirk v. Bell, 3 Cranch 454, 458 (1806) (holding that the treaty of peace between Great Britain and the United States prevented the operation of a state statute of limitations on British debts). That this Court has rarely had occasion to find a treaty non-selfexeeuting is not…1 / 3
-
M'Cluny v. Wyllis Silliman, 3 Pet. 270 (U.S. 1830)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ware, 3 Dall. 199 (U.S. 1796)
- The State of Ga., 3 Dall. 1 (U.S. 1794)