Talk:Hickman v. Ft. Scott/Opinion of the Court
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
This page is part of a WikiProject to improve the United States Supreme Court case pages. To participate see the project page. |
| Information about this edition | |
|---|---|
| Edition: | Hickman v. Ft. Scott, States for the district of Kansas, against the city of Ft Scott, a municipal corporation of that state, to recover the amount of 27 bonds, of $500 each, issued by that city The action was tried by the court without a jury One of the issues was whether the suit was barred by the Kansas statute of limitations, declaring that an action on an agreement, contract, or promise in writing could be brought within five years after the cause of action accrued, and not afterwards; but providing that 'in any case founded on contract, when any part of the principal or interest shall have been paid, or an acknowledgment of an existing liability, debt, or claim, or any promise to pay the same, shall have been made, an action may be brought in such case within the period prescribed for the same, after such payment, acknowledgment, or promise; but such acknowledgment or promise must be in writing, signed by the party to be charged thereby' Gen St Kan c 80, art 3, pp 633-635 That issue depended upon the inquiry whether the city had made such an acknowledgment of its liability on the bonds as took the case out of the limitation of five years . |
| Source: | Hickman v. Ft. Scott from http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/141 |
| Contributor(s): | BenchBot |
| Level of progress: | Text being edited 
|
| Notes: | Gathered and wikified using an automated tool. See this documentation for more information. |