Patten v. Ray
PATTEN & STEWART v. RAY
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William J. Murray, Jr. (author), Heydeneeldt
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Murray
Mr. Ch. J. Murray delivered the opinion of the Court.
Mr. J. Heydeneeldt concurred.
The Court below properly decided that a foreign judgment was not * ‘ a contract, obligation or liability for the payment of money, founded on an instrument of writing executed out of this S tate, ” within tho meaning of the Statute of Limitations. We have already decided at this Term † that the Act of ’52 does not alter the time, as provided in the Act of ’50, for commencing suits upon this class of liabilities.
Judgment affirmed with costs.
Cavender v. Guild, ante, 250.
Cited by
- Higgins v. Graham Sac. No. 1043. · 1904-04-29
- Dore v. Thornburgh No. 13477 · 1891-06-30