Hyperlawhypertext legal database Hopkirk v. Bell 8 U.S. 164

← Cases

Hopkirk v. Bell

8 U.S. 164 4 Cranch 164 Court SCOTUS Decision date 1807-02-28 English

Delivered by The Court

Contents

Majority

p. 99
Hopkirk v. Bell.

Syllabus

Statute of Imitations.
The act of limitations of Virginia is no bar to a British creditor’s demand on a promissory note, dated 21st August 1772, although one of the plaintiffs was in the country, after the treaty of peace, viz., in 1784, and remained here, until his death in 1785.
This case was again certified from the Circuit Court for the district of Virginia.
It appeared upon the trial, in addition to the facts stated in the former report of the case,[1] that Andrew Johnston, one of the partners of the house, trading under the firm of Alexander Spiers, John Bowman & Co., of whom the plaintiff was the surviving partner, came to this country, after the treaty of peace in 1783, viz., in the spring of 1784, and died here in 1785, but that no other partner of the firm has been in this country, at any time since the treaty of peace.
C. Lee, for the plaintiff,
cited Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 240 , 242, 281.
*February 28th, 1807.

ordered it to be certified as r*16g their opinion, that, under the all circumstances stated, the act of *- limitations of Virginia was not a bar to the plaintiff’s demand on the note of 21st August 1772.

Cases cited

  • 3 Dall. 240 3 Dall. 240 at 281 p. 99